SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ11130675 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ11130675 · June 5, 2025

Joint Findings and Award and Order issued on November 18, 2022 is rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 3
Authorities named: 1
District office: Los Angeles

What the panel ordered

Joint Findings and Award and Order issued on November 18, 2022 is rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior Findings and Award and returning matter to trial level for further proceedings

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Permanent total disabilityDefendant prevailed

No evidence applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated; WCJ's finding of permanent total disability under section 4662(a)(4) was in error and rescinded

From the decision · page 11A traumatic injury may lead to permanent mental incapacity in severe cases; however, a traumatic brain injury is not synonymous with having permanent mental incapacity. "Incapacity" is "the quality or state of being incapable; especially lack of physical or intellectual power or of natural or legal qualifications." ("Incapacity", Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online ed., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacity, last reviewed September 17, 2024 (emphasis added).) Here, no evidence exists to find that applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated. Applicant was able to coherently testify to the events of his case. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible.4

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

No evidence applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated

Favours Defendant prevailed

Applicant was able to coherently testify and WCJ found testimony credible, undermining the basis for conclusive presumption of permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)

From the decision · page 11A traumatic injury may lead to permanent mental incapacity in severe cases; however, a traumatic brain injury is not synonymous with having permanent mental incapacity. "Incapacity" is "the quality or state of being incapable; especially lack of physical or intellectual power or of natural or legal qualifications." ("Incapacity", Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online ed., https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incapacity, last reviewed September 17, 2024 (emphasis added).) Here, no evidence exists to find that applicant is permanently mentally incapacitated. Applicant was able to coherently testify to the events of his case. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible.4

Appeals Board's administrative delay in acting on petition for reconsideration was not the fault of parties

Favours Applicant prevailed

Equitable tolling applied to extend time for Appeals Board to act, allowing reconsideration on merits

From the decision · page 9In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings and Award on November 18, 2022, and applicant filed a timely petition on December 12, 2022. According to EAMS, the case file was first transmitted to the Appeals Board on February 22, 2023, which was beyond 60 days from the petition for reconsideration being filed. Accordingly, the Appeals Board failed to act on the petition within 60 days, through no fault of the parties. The Appeals Board granted the petition on March 7, 2023, within 60 days of the petition being transmitted to the Appeals Board. In so doing so, we sent a clear signal to the parties of our intention to exercise jurisdiction and issue a final decision after reconsideration. Neither party expressed any opposition to this course of action, and it appears clear from the fact that neither party sought judicial review of our grant of reconsideration that both parties have acted in reliance on our grant.