ADJ13493291 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings of Fact, Joint Orders by the WCJ; the WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The WCAB found the record was not properly developed and granted reconsideration to allow further study and a just decision.

From the decision · page 11Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. 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 be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.

The facts that decided it

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.

AMENot substantial evidence

Found applicant's condition permanent and stationary as of May 9, 2024, diagnosed symptomatic cervical and lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy, apportioned disability among injuries and cumulative trauma.

From the decision · page 4The applicant was re-evaluated by Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Peter Mandell, M.D. on May 9, 2024. (Defendant's Exhibit KK, p. 1.) No updated medical records were provided to Dr. Mandell. (Id. at p. 6.) In his summary of the interval history from his prior exam, Dr. Madell notes that the applicant worked until January 2024 when she was taken off work by a doctor due to pain. (Id. at p. 2.) The applicant had abdominal hernia repair surgery about one year prior to the re-evaluation. (Id. at p. 3.) She had several falls which further injured her back. (Ibid.)

QMENot substantial evidence · neurology

Diagnosed cervicogenic headaches and sleep disturbance on an industrial basis; recommended psychiatric evaluation for anxiety, depression, and other symptoms; recommended polysomnogram for possible obstructive sleep apnea.

From the decision · page 5Defendant's Exhibit JJ: Panel QME report of Lawrence Richman, M.D., dated May 14, 2024. Defendant's Exhibit NN: Transcript of the deposition of Lawrence Richman, M.D., dated October 30, 2024.

QMENot substantial evidence · internal medicine

Diagnosed GERD and hiatal hernia; noted applicant's complaints including shortness of breath; found disability not permanent and stationary as of May 17, 2024 due to need for further record review.

From the decision · page 7Defendant's Exhibit LL: Panel QME report of Andrew McClintock Greenberg, M.D., dated May 17, 2024. Defendant's Exhibit MM: Panel QME report of Andrew McClintock Greenberg, M.D., dated December 13, 2024.

PTPNot substantial evidence

From the decision · page 3Parties stipulated, in part based on the results of the prior trial, that in case number ADJ12260890, the applicant Zoila the applicant, while employed on November 29, 2017, as a custodian, Occupational Group Number 340, at San Francisco, California, by San Francisco State University, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her low back. In case number ADJ13493291, the applicant, while employed during the period through August 5, 2020, as a custodian, Occupational Group Number 340, by San Francisco State University, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her low back. In case number ADJ19093281, the applicant, while employed during the period through January 30, 2024, by San Francisco State University, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her low back. For all dates of injury, the employer was legally uninsured. The applicant's primary treating physician for all dates of injury is Dr. Toufan Razi.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.

The WCAB reviewed the record to determine if substantial evidence supported industrial causation.

From the decision · page 10III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: 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. (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).) Moreover, it is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274

Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.

The WCAB found the medical evidence was not substantial due to incompleteness and staleness, warranting reconsideration.

From the decision · page 10III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: 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. (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).) Moreover, it is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

ADJ13493291 · May 11, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page