ADJ9507100 · July 20, 2026

The WCAB found that the prior Compromise and Release (C&R) did not clearly cover the COPD injury, and no medical evidence was produced to establish whether the COPD was a compensable consequence of the settled claim or a separate injury. Therefore, res judicata did not bar the claim and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6If the medical evidence establishes that the sole industrial cause of the COPD is asbestos exposure, then the injury would appear to be a compensable consequence of applicant’s settled claim, and thus, likely precluded. If the medical evidence establishes that applicant’s COPD is a separate injury caused, even in part, through other industrial exposures, then it does not fall within the prior C&R as that C&R was limited solely to the case number listed on the document. As no such medical evidence was produced at trial, there is not sufficient information to determine whether the prior C&R covers applicant’s claimed injury herein. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the April 14, 2026 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on April 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is GRANTED.

No medical evidence was produced at trial to establish whether COPD was covered by prior C&R or was a separate injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without medical evidence, the WCAB could not determine if res judicata barred the COPD claim, leading to granting reconsideration and returning the matter for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6If the medical evidence establishes that the sole industrial cause of the COPD is asbestos exposure, then the injury would appear to be a compensable consequence of applicant’s settled claim, and thus, likely precluded. If the medical evidence establishes that applicant’s COPD is a separate injury caused, even in part, through other industrial exposures, then it does not fall within the prior C&R as that C&R was limited solely to the case number listed on the document. As no such medical evidence was produced at trial, there is not sufficient information to determine whether the prior C&R covers applicant’s claimed injury herein. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the April 14, 2026 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on April 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is GRANTED.

South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

Applicant has the initial burden to prove industrial causation by preponderance of evidence (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291).

Applicant must prove injury occurred AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence.

From the decision · page 4When applicant claims a physical injury, applicant has the initial burden of proving industrial causation by showing the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; § 5705.) Applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury occurred AOE/COE. (Lab. Code 1, §§ 3202.5; 3600(a).)

Labor Code section 3208.2

Anti-merger provision requires separate determination of facts and law for combined effects of multiple injuries (Labor Code section 3208.2).

Separate determination required for combined effects of multiple injuries.

From the decision · page 5Section 3208.2 contains the anti-merger provision of workers' compensation, which states: When disability, need for medical treatment, or death results from the combined effects of two or more injuries, either specific, cumulative, or both, all questions of fact and law shall be separately determined with respect to each such injury, including, but not limited to, the apportionment between such injuries of liability for disability benefits, the cost of medical treatment, and any death benefit.

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

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473).

Decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and based on admitted evidence.

From the decision · page 6(§ 3208.2.) Decisions 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).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (§§ 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].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision. (§ 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) As noted in paragraph 3 in the Compromise and Release: “This agreement is limited to settlement of the body parts, conditions, or systems and for the dates of injury set forth in Paragraph No. 1 and further explained in Paragraph No. 9 despite any language to the contrary elsewhere in this document or any addendum.” (Joint Exhibit A4, supra at p. 5.) Medical evidence is required to determine whether applicant’s claim of COPD falls within the prior C&R or whether the COPD constitutes its own separate injury.

No medical evidence was produced at trial to determine if COPD was covered by prior C&R or was a separate injury.

From the decision · page 6If the medical evidence establishes that the sole industrial cause of the COPD is asbestos exposure, then the injury would appear to be a compensable consequence of applicant’s settled claim, and thus, likely precluded. If the medical evidence establishes that applicant’s COPD is a separate injury caused, even in part, through other industrial exposures, then it does not fall within the prior C&R as that C&R was limited solely to the case number listed on the document. As no such medical evidence was produced at trial, there is not sufficient information to determine whether the prior C&R covers applicant’s claimed injury herein. Accordingly, we grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration and as our Decision After Reconsideration we rescind the April 14, 2026 F&O and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on April 14, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge is GRANTED.