What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied, affirming the prior Findings of Fact & Orders that petitioner failed to prove employment and injury and failed to comply with discovery orders.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 7, 2021.
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.
Applicant failed to prove employment and injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence, as found by the WCJ and affirmed by the panel.
From the decision · page 11The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petitioner failed to comply with Discovery Orders to obtain Social Security records and wage information.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This non-compliance prevented proof of employment and injury, leading to dismissal of the claim.
From the decision · page 1Following submission for decision pursuant to the Opinion and Decision after Removal, Findings of Fact & Orders issued. Opinion & Decision After Removal 6/07/2021; Submission for Decision 7/13/2021; Findings of Fact & Orders 8/25/2021. Petitioner was found to have failed to comply with Discovery Orders of April 30, 2019 and August 21, 2019, was not shown to have been generally or specially employed by any Defendant other than D&S
Petitioner failed to attend the Mandatory Settlement Conference of February 19, 2020.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to appear supported dismissal and denial of claim.
From the decision · page 1Following submission for decision pursuant to the Opinion and Decision after Removal, Findings of Fact & Orders issued. Opinion & Decision After Removal 6/07/2021; Submission for Decision 7/13/2021; Findings of Fact & Orders 8/25/2021. Petitioner was found to have failed to comply with Discovery Orders of April 30, 2019 and August 21, 2019, was not shown to have been generally or specially employed by any Defendant other than D&S
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Medical records indicate pulmonary coccidioidomycosis (San Joaquin Valley Fever) among other conditions, but do not indicate these ailments arose out of or in the course of employment by any Defendants.
Medical records do not indicate causation of ailments from employment.
From the decision · page 3Consideration of the medical abstract attached to the pending petition would not change the recommended outcome. The abstract of the records of Hany Aziz, M.D., indicates that Petitioner suffers from pulmonary coccidioidomycosis (San Joaquin Valley Fever) among other conditions. But these medical records do not indicate that any of these ailments arose out of or in the course of any employment of Petitioner by any of the Defendants.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, 3202.5, 3600(a).
The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence.
In this case, the WCJ and panel agreed the applicant did not meet his burden of proof.
From the decision · page 11The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet his burden of proof.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Petitioner's failure to comply with two Discovery Orders to obtain Social Security records and wage information.
From the decision · page 1Following submission for decision pursuant to the Opinion and Decision after Removal, Findings of Fact & Orders issued. Opinion & Decision After Removal 6/07/2021; Submission for Decision 7/13/2021; Findings of Fact & Orders 8/25/2021. Petitioner was found to have failed to comply with Discovery Orders of April 30, 2019 and August 21, 2019, was not shown to have been generally or specially employed by any Defendant other than D&S
Petitioner's failure to attend the Mandatory Settlement Conference of February 19, 2020.
From the decision · page 1Following submission for decision pursuant to the Opinion and Decision after Removal, Findings of Fact & Orders issued. Opinion & Decision After Removal 6/07/2021; Submission for Decision 7/13/2021; Findings of Fact & Orders 8/25/2021. Petitioner was found to have failed to comply with Discovery Orders of April 30, 2019 and August 21, 2019, was not shown to have been generally or specially employed by any Defendant other than D&S
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.