What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; Findings of November 28, 2022 amended; issue of new and further disability deferred with jurisdiction reserved
Petitions for reconsideration granted; issue of new and further disability deferred for further record development
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 record lacked substantial medical evidence explaining the causal connection between the 2013 injury and the low back condition, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issue of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury. The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) medical evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Since, in accordance with that mandate, "it is well established that the WCJ or the Board may not leave undeveloped matters" within its acquired specialized knowledge (Id. at p. 404), pursuant to Labor Code section 5906, we will defer the issues of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury so the record may be clarified, by way of substantial medical evidence, regarding whether the March 21, 2013 injury caused the need for medical treatment or disability with regard to the low back.