What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of October 4, 2000 rescinded; case returned to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision.
Petition for reconsideration granted by the Board en banc, remanding case to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision due to incomplete record.
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 Board found the record incomplete as it lacked a list of issues, admissions and stipulations, and a list of evidence, making it impossible to determine the basis for the WCJ's decision.
From the decision · page 52s1f The record of the case before us contains no list of issues presented, no admissions and
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record contained no list of issues presented, no admissions and stipulations of the parties, and no list of evidence submitted or admitted.
Favours neutral
This lack of a proper record prevented the Board from determining the basis for the WCJ's decision, requiring rescission and remand.
From the decision · page 52s1f The record of the case before us contains no list of issues presented, no admissions and
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10601, 10602, 10626
The record must contain the issues submitted for decision, admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence in a properly organized form.
The Board held that the record before it was incomplete and did not meet these requirements, necessitating remand for further development.
From the decision · page 519!1 In summary, the Labor Code and the Board's rules contain explicit instructions
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.