ADJ2574910 — California WCAB decision

ADJ2574910 · September 5, 2025

Rescinded the July 14, 2023 F&A and substituted a new F&A deferring new and further disability and penalties issues, ordered appointment of a regular physician, and returned the matter to trial level for further proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Santa Ana

What the panel ordered

Decision After Reconsideration rescinding the July 14, 2023 Findings of Fact, Orders and Award and substituting a new F&A, deferring issues of new and further disability and penalties, and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings including appointment of a regular physician pursuant to Labor Code section 5701.

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.

Reopening / new and further disabilityDeferredcardiovascular system · hearing loss · tinnitus · dental

The current record does not constitute substantial medical evidence to support a finding of new and further disability; the issue is deferred until further development and determination of disability extent.

From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ issued a finding that applicant sustained new and further disability, but the WCJ deferred any determination of the extent of such disability. This is a contradiction. In order to support a finding of new and further disability, there must necessarily exist a finding establishing such disability. For the reasons discussed in the WCJ's Report, we agree that the current record does not constitute substantial medical evidence. Thus, we cannot determine whether applicant has sustained new and further disability absent a determination of any additional periods of temporary disability, or a final rating of permanent disability. Accordingly, we will amend the F&A to defer any finding of new and further disability, until it can be determined what disability exists.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Betancourt's medical reporting is contradictory and self-limiting, not substantial medical evidence on new and further injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Led to deferral of new and further disability issue due to lack of substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 3The undersigned acknowledges contradictory findings as well as self-limiting statements in Dr. Betancourt's reporting. It is why the reporting is not to be substantial medical evidence on the issue of whether there is new and further injury.

Defendant provided no evidence of efforts to comply with the order to provide replacement hearing aids and TV attachment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Contributed to deferral of penalty issue as applicant did not meet burden of proof for unreasonable delay.

From the decision · page 74. The issue of penalties is deferred. Section 5814 allows an award of penalties where payment of compensation is unreasonably delayed. (§ 5814.) On February 13, 2023, defendant was ordered to provide applicant replacement hearing aids with a TV attachment. That order was not appealed and it is now final. Defendant argues that it was precluded from complying with this order because the treating doctor was unable to set an appointment timely. However, arguments are not evidence. Defendant's petition does not cite to any evidence establishing the fact that defendant was precluded from authorizing the ordered treatment. Next, defendant provided no evidence of its efforts to comply with the February 13, 2023 order. The only evidence in the record is an email chain between defense counsel and applicant, which does not discuss the authorization for replacement hearing aids. (Defendant's Exhibit G.) Defendant's position appears to be that applicant is not doing enough to obtain the hearing aids; however, defendant has not provided any evidence of what efforts it has made to authorize the treatment. For example, defendant could have mailed a letter to Dr. Xu specifically authorizing the acquisition of the hearing aids. No such letter is in evidence. Defendant's argument that applicant is preventing the authorization is not supported by any record.

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

A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and set forth reasoning in support of conclusions to constitute substantial evidence.

Applied to reject Dr. Betancourt's report as insubstantial medical evidence on new and further disability issue.

From the decision · page 5To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) "When the foundation of an expert's testimony is determined to be inadequate as a matter of law, we are not bound by an apparent conflict in the evidence created by his bare conclusions." (People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 139.)

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

The WCJ must state reasons or grounds for determination to enable parties and Board to ascertain basis for decision; decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence.

Applied to require clear designation of evidence basis and substantial evidence support for findings on new and further disability.

From the decision · page 4DISCUSSION 1. New and further disability. Section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and 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].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)

Labor Code section 5814

Section 5814 allows award of penalties where payment of compensation is unreasonably delayed.

Applied to defer penalty issue due to insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay by defendant.

From the decision · page 74. The issue of penalties is deferred. Section 5814 allows an award of penalties where payment of compensation is unreasonably delayed. (§ 5814.) On February 13, 2023, defendant was ordered to provide applicant replacement hearing aids with a TV attachment. That order was not appealed and it is now final. Defendant argues that it was precluded from complying with this order because the treating doctor was unable to set an appointment timely. However, arguments are not evidence. Defendant's petition does not cite to any evidence establishing the fact that defendant was precluded from authorizing the ordered treatment. Next, defendant provided no evidence of its efforts to comply with the February 13, 2023 order. The only evidence in the record is an email chain between defense counsel and applicant, which does not discuss the authorization for replacement hearing aids. (Defendant's Exhibit G.) Defendant's position appears to be that applicant is not doing enough to obtain the hearing aids; however, defendant has not provided any evidence of what efforts it has made to authorize the treatment. For example, defendant could have mailed a letter to Dr. Xu specifically authorizing the acquisition of the hearing aids. No such letter is in evidence. Defendant's argument that applicant is preventing the authorization is not supported by any record.

ADJ2574910 · September 5, 2025

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