ADJ15963667 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; matter referred to status conference; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and record.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the August 2, 2023 Findings and Order denying the cumulative trauma claim; the WCJ had found the denial timely and no injury arising out of employment during the period October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021. The Appeals Board 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.

AOE/COERemanded

The WCJ found the denial of the cumulative trauma claim timely and no injury arising out of employment during the period, but the Appeals Board found the record unclear and granted reconsideration for further review.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 2, 2023 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant "did not timely raise the issue of untimely denial of the cumulative trauma [CT] claim during the period of [October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021]" though there was no prejudice to defendant; that defendant's denial of the CT claim during the period October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021 was timely; and that applicant did not suffer injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing for the claim of injury on October 20, 2021 or during the period of October 20, 2020 to October 20, 2021.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

expert methodologyfavours Applicant prevailed

The record must contain issues submitted for decision, admissions and stipulations, and admitted evidence; the WCJ must set forth reasons and evidence relied on.

From the decision · page 3Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787.) "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. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id. at p. 476 (citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350]).)

expert methodologyfavours Applicant prevailed

The WCJ and Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where evidence is insufficient.

From the decision · page 3The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

ADJ15963667 · October 24, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page