What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review.
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 6, 2023.
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 WCJ found applicant temporarily totally disabled for 104 weeks and entitled to penalties, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration for further review due to insufficient substantial evidence.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant showed good cause for replacement panel in Neurology due to Dr. Abbott Krieger's unavailability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led to granting the replacement panel and reconsideration for further review of medical evidence.
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.
Unavailable for additional supplemental report due to medical condition, leading to replacement panel granted.
Defendant showed good cause for replacement panel due to Dr. Krieger's unavailability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627; Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159
Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's decision lacked substantial evidence and required further development of the record.
From the decision · page 5It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board 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].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant testified at trial; defendant did not present witnesses.
From the decision · page 5Testimony was taken at both trials wherein only the applicant testified; the defendant did not present any witnesses. Evidence was provided by both parties. Petitioner defendant's Petition for Reconsideration addresses the validity of the Findings of Fact and Award and Order issued by this WCJ as stated above. Findings of Fact And Award dated April 16, 2025, EAMS DOC. ID NO.:79089011.
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.