What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; First Amended Findings and Award rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on November 24, 2020, which found applicant's upper extremity injury caused 37% permanent disability based on QME Dr. Behrman's report.
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 record was incomplete, lacking a trial record, admitted evidence, and a proper Opinion on Decision, requiring rescission and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 2The threshold issue which we must address is that the record of proceedings in this matter does not contain a trial record regarding the October 12, 2020 trial. The Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) adjudication file does not contain a Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, there are no stipulations and/or issues identified, and there is no evidence admitted into the record.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record of proceedings did not contain a trial record, Minutes of Hearing, stipulations, admitted evidence, or an Opinion on Decision.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of a proper record prevented addressing the issues raised and required rescission and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 2The threshold issue which we must address is that the record of proceedings in this matter does not contain a trial record regarding the October 12, 2020 trial. The Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) adjudication file does not contain a Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, there are no stipulations and/or issues identified, and there is no evidence admitted into the record.
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.
Dr. Behrman's report was found to be substantial evidence supporting a 37% permanent disability rating for applicant's upper extremity injury.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award, (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 24, 2020, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the report from orthopedic upper extremity/hand qualified medical examiner (QME) Michael J. Behrman, M.D., was substantial evidence, and based thereon that applicant's upper extremity injury caused 37% permanent disability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc); Blackledge v. Bank of America, ACE American Insurance Company (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (Appeals Board en banc)
The record of proceedings must contain issues submitted for decision, stipulations, admitted evidence, and a summary of evidence and reasons for determination (Lab. Code, 5502; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10759 (b) and (c); Lab. Code, 5313). Consultative ratings are inadmissible and cannot be relied upon by the WCJ (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10166(b)).
The record was incomplete and lacked required elements, necessitating rescission and remand. The WCJ cannot rely on consultative ratings.
From the decision · page 2"[T]he record of proceedings in a case submitted for decision on the record must be properly organized and must contain at the minimum: a list of the issues submitted to the WCJ for decision; the stipulations of the parties, if any; and the admitted evidence." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 474 (Appeals Board en banc).) "The evidence submitted by the parties must be formally admitted and must be included in the record to enable the parties to comprehend the basis for the decision. Furthermore, a proper record enables any reviewing tribunal, be it the Appeals Board on reconsideration or a court of further appeal, to understand the basis for the decision." (Hamilton, supra, 475.) The Labor Code and the Appeals Board rules contain explicit instructions concerning the contents of the record of a case. (Lab. Code, § 5502; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10759 (b) and (c).) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record." (Hamilton, supra, 477.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
lack of trial record, no Minutes of Hearing, no stipulations, no admitted evidence, and no Opinion on Decision in the record
From the decision · page 2The threshold issue which we must address is that the record of proceedings in this matter does not contain a trial record regarding the October 12, 2020 trial. The Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) adjudication file does not contain a Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, there are no stipulations and/or issues identified, and there is no evidence admitted into the record.
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.