What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant on May 8, 2023, denied for failure to make specific citations to the record and on the merits adopting the WCJ report.
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 petition failed to make specific citations to the record as required by WCAB Rule 10945(b) and case law, and the WCJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence, so the petition was denied.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant on May 8, 2023, and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, the petition fails to make specific citations to the record and will be denied.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration failed to make specific citations to the record as required by WCAB Rule 10945(b) and case law
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure justified denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 2II. WCAB Rule 10945(b) provides, in relevant part: "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b), emphasis added.) Rule 10945(b) then goes on to specify how references to the record must be made. The requirements of Rule 10945 regarding specific references to the record are consistent with case law regarding proper citation to the record in appellate proceedings. (Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehab. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 ("an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record... to test his claim"); City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287 ("[r]ather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has waived a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record"); Salas v. Cal. Dept. of Transp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1074 ("[w]e are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs'] contentions"); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 ("[t]he appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error" and "[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record,...
WCJ's credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence including witness demeanor
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supported the denial of the petition on the merits.
From the decision · page 5The trial judge's credibility determination should be given great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 504-505].) There was also no evidence of considerable substantiality that should warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination.
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.
Opined applicant did not have injury involving the neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, hands, hips, knees, or feet.
The court relied on the opinion of Lee Silver, M.D., orthopedic PQME, to find no injury to certain body parts.
From the decision · page 5Chodakiewitz, M.D., PQME Dr. Stanley Goodman and the report of Ariel Shandling, M.S. However, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, hands, hips, knees, or feet. The court relied on the opinions of Lee Silver, M.D., the orthopedic PQME, who opined applicant did not have an injury involving the neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, shoulders, elbows, hands, hips, knees, or feet. (Ortho PQME reports by Lee Silver, M.D., dated 5/24/2019 and September 4, 2019, Exhibits II and HH.)
Supported the finding of 62 percent permanent disability to brain/neurological system/cognitive, psyche, vestibular/ear/vertigo and speech and sleep.
The court relied on the opinion of Stanley Goodman, M.D., PQME, supporting the compensable claim and disability rating.
From the decision · page 4This case proceeded to trial on January 21, 2023 and was submitted on February 6, 2023 after submission of trial briefs. At the time of trial applicant was represented by counsel. The court issued the decision on April 25, 2023, and found applicant has a compensable claim which resulted in 62 percent permanent disability to the her brain/neurological system/cognitive, psyche, vestibular/ear/vertigo and speech and sleep based on the opinions of PQME Dr. Jacobo
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10945(b)
WCAB Rule 10945(b) requiring specific references to the record in petitions for reconsideration
Petition denied for failure to comply with this rule.
From the decision · page 2II. WCAB Rule 10945(b) provides, in relevant part: "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b), emphasis added.) Rule 10945(b) then goes on to specify how references to the record must be made. The requirements of Rule 10945 regarding specific references to the record are consistent with case law regarding proper citation to the record in appellate proceedings. (Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehab. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 ("an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record... to test his claim"); City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287 ("[r]ather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has waived a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record"); Salas v. Cal. Dept. of Transp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1074 ("[w]e are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs'] contentions"); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 ("[t]he appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error" and "[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record,...
Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104
Due process requires notice before depriving a party of a substantial right
Time to act on petition tolled due to Appeals Board error in failing to act within 60 days.
From the decision · page 1I. A petition is generally considered denied by operation of law if the Appeals Board does not grant the petition within 60 days after it is filed. (Lab. Code, § 5909.)1 However, we believe that "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice..." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it had not acted on the petition within the statutory time limits of Labor Code section 5909. This occurred because the Appeals Board had misplaced the file, through no fault of the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the Appeals Board's decision, holding that the time to act on applicant's petition was tolled during the period that the file was misplaced. (Id. at p. 1108.) Like the Court in Shipley, "we are not convinced that the burden of the system's
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determination based on witness demeanor and testimony
From the decision · page 5The trial judge's credibility determination should be given great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 504-505].) There was also no evidence of considerable substantiality that should warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination.
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.