What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is granted; final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and entire record.p. 12
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, Awards issued by the WCJ on April 23, 2026; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal recommending denial; the Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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.
The Appeals Board found that the record may not be complete regarding causation of the psychiatric injury and that reconsideration is necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to issue a just and reasoned decision.
From the decision · page 9(Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding causation of the psychiatric injury. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record may not be complete regarding causation of the psychiatric injury, necessitating further study.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact led the Appeals Board to grant reconsideration to allow a just and reasoned decision.
From the decision · page 9(Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding causation of the psychiatric injury. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must
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.
Provided multiple reports on permanent impairment; opined that certain impairments should be added rather than combined under CVC; deceased before supplemental opinion could be obtained.
Death of Dr. Schmidt prevented further supplementation; his opinions on addition of impairments were relied upon.
From the decision · page 6AME Isaac Schmidt provided the opinion that the permanent impairment for the applicant’s lumbar spine and bilateral knees should be added (rather than combined under the CVC) to properly reflect the applicant’s disability.
Provided psychiatric injury causation opinion; found some psychiatric injury arose from supervisor's conduct during and after employment; recommended further clarification on causation percentages.
His opinion indicated the need to clarify the portion of psychiatric injury caused during employment versus post-employment conduct.
Provided report admitted for good cause due to change in law and death of AME Schmidt; supported 100% permanent disability finding when combined with AME Schmidt's reports.
Admission justified by change in law (Kite to Vigil) and death of AME Schmidt, addressing longstanding issue of addition of permanent disability.
From the decision · page 7Therefore, the admission of the report from Dr. Nissanoff was for good cause on issues that had been long standing on this case and due to both a change in the law and the death of the existing medical expert on the case.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297–298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5.
An employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence.
Applied to the burden of proof for injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 8III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: An employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297–298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5.) As relevant here, section 3208.3(b) provides:
Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)
Section 3208.3(b) provides criteria for compensability of psychiatric injury, including causation thresholds.
Applied to determine compensability of psychiatric injury based on causation percentages.
From the decision · page 8(a) A psychiatric injury shall be compensable if it is a mental disorder which causes disability or need for medical treatment, and it is diagnosed pursuant to procedures promulgated under paragraph (4) of subdivision (j) of Section 139.2 or, until these procedures are promulgated, it is diagnosed using the terminology and criteria of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition-Revised, or the terminology and diagnostic criteria of other psychiatric diagnostic manuals generally approved and accepted nationally by practitioners in the field of psychiatric medicine.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony that his former supervisor attempted to get his new employer to terminate his employment post-termination.
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.