What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; Findings and Award in ADJ16567344 amended to increase permanent disability to 22% with no apportionment; Findings and Award in ADJ16597926 amended to defer issues of wrist and upper extremity injury and permanent disability for further medical clarification.
Petition for reconsideration granted by the WCAB panel on December 26, 2025, amending prior Findings and Awards of September 26, 2025 in cases ADJ16567344 and ADJ16597926.
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.
Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion was found not to constitute substantial medical evidence because it lacked detailed reasoning required by Escobedo, so apportionment was rejected and permanent disability was increased to 22%.
From the decision · page 4non-industrial factors. For these reasons we find that Dr. Egan's apportionment discussion did not
The issue of injury to the wrists and upper extremities was deferred for further medical clarification by Dr. Shani due to insufficient evidence and conflicting medical opinions.
From the decision · page 5The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will amend the decision in case ADJ16597926 to defer the issues of industrial injury to the wrists and permanent disability so that the record may be more fully developed on these issues. In the further proceedings, Dr. Shani should clarify his findings regarding the applicant's wrists, directly addressing the EMG/nerve studies and the reporting of Drs. Tabibian and Haronian. Dr. Shani should also clarify whether any wrist issues were subsumed in the permanent impairment ascribed to the neck and back. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of this matter.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion lacked the detailed reasoning required by Escobedo and was not substantial medical evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to rejection of apportionment and increase of permanent disability to 22%.
From the decision · page 4non-industrial factors. For these reasons we find that Dr. Egan's apportionment discussion did not
Conflicting medical opinions and incomplete evidence on wrist injury, including EMG and nerve conduction studies supporting carpal tunnel syndrome.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to deferral of the wrist and upper extremity injury and permanent disability issues for further medical clarification.
From the decision · page 5The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will amend the decision in case ADJ16597926 to defer the issues of industrial injury to the wrists and permanent disability so that the record may be more fully developed on these issues. In the further proceedings, Dr. Shani should clarify his findings regarding the applicant's wrists, directly addressing the EMG/nerve studies and the reporting of Drs. Tabibian and Haronian. Dr. Shani should also clarify whether any wrist issues were subsumed in the permanent impairment ascribed to the neck and back. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of this matter.
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.
Apportioned 20% of psychiatric injury to nonindustrial factors but failed to provide substantial medical evidence as required by Escobedo.
Opinion lacked detailed reasoning and explanation of apportionment percentages, thus not substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 4non-industrial factors. For these reasons we find that Dr. Egan's apportionment discussion did not
Initial report ruled out carpal tunnel syndrome based on physical tests but did not address EMG/nerve conduction studies or wrist injury and disability explicitly.
Did not discuss EMG/nerve studies or wrist disability; further clarification requested by WCAB.
From the decision · page 5The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will amend the decision in case ADJ16597926 to defer the issues of industrial injury to the wrists and permanent disability so that the record may be more fully developed on these issues. In the further proceedings, Dr. Shani should clarify his findings regarding the applicant's wrists, directly addressing the EMG/nerve studies and the reporting of Drs. Tabibian and Haronian. Dr. Shani should also clarify whether any wrist issues were subsumed in the permanent impairment ascribed to the neck and back. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of this matter.
Diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and disagreed with QME, opining wrists injury was industrial and part of permanent disability.
Disagreed with QME's ruling out of wrist injury; supported industrial injury to wrists.
From the decision · page 5wrist. (June 27, 2024 report at pp. 8-9.) In so finding, Dr. Haronian wrote "As it relates to the wrists, I am in disagreement with the assessment of the QME, as it is not compile impairment [sic] or discussion in regards to wrists. The neurodiagnostic studies did reveal evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome and her work-related activities are consistent with her complaints on an industrial basis. As such, I do believe that the carpal tunnel syndrome is part of the industrial injury." (June 27, 2024 report at pp. 8-9.)
Reported EMG and nerve conduction studies showing bilateral moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.
Provided objective diagnostic evidence of wrist injury.
From the decision · page 4Benham Sam Tabibian, M.D. who wrote in a January 17, 2023 report that EMG and nerve
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 617 [Appeals Bd. en banc]
A medical opinion on apportionment must set forth detailed reasoning and basis for the opinion to constitute substantial medical evidence, as established in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005).
Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion was rejected for lack of detailed reasoning and explanation of apportionment percentages.
From the decision · page 4non-industrial factors. For these reasons we find that Dr. Egan's apportionment discussion did not
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, as required by Labor Code section 5909.
The decision was issued on the 60th day after transmission, thus timely acting on the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on October 27, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is December 26, 2025. This decision is issued by or on December 26, 2025, so we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion lacked detailed reasoning and explanation of apportionment percentages as required by Escobedo.
From the decision · page 4non-industrial factors. For these reasons we find that Dr. Egan's apportionment discussion did not
Conflicting medical opinions and incomplete evidence regarding wrist injury and disability, including EMG and nerve conduction studies supporting carpal tunnel syndrome.
From the decision · page 5The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) In accordance with that mandate, we will amend the decision in case ADJ16597926 to defer the issues of industrial injury to the wrists and permanent disability so that the record may be more fully developed on these issues. In the further proceedings, Dr. Shani should clarify his findings regarding the applicant's wrists, directly addressing the EMG/nerve studies and the reporting of Drs. Tabibian and Haronian. Dr. Shani should also clarify whether any wrist issues were subsumed in the permanent impairment ascribed to the neck and back. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of this matter.
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.