What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the August 11, 2025 Findings and Order by the WCJ, which found injury arising out of employment and that a home health assessment request is subject to Utilization Review. The WCJ deferred other issues. The Appeals Board granted 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 the record was not properly developed and that the WCJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, warranting reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues.
From the decision · page 5Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, we are not persuaded that there is substantial evidence to support the WCJ's decision.