What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review
Petition for Reconsideration granted; matter referred for status conference; final decision deferred pending further review
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 Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration to allow further review and development of the record.
From the decision · page 2Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration, and we will order that this matter be referred to a workers compensation administrative law judge or designated hearing officer of the Appeals Board for a status conference. Our order granting applicant's Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The existing record was unclear and insufficient to support the WCJ's decision and legal conclusions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of clarity and completeness justified granting reconsideration to allow further development of the record.
From the decision · page 4Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review whether the legal issues have been properly identified; whether the existing record is sufficient to support the decision, order, and legal conclusions of the WCJ; and/or whether further development of the record may be necessary. Thus, we will order the matter to a status conference before a workers' compensation administrative law judge or designated hearing officer of the Appeals Board.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 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; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473
Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence and based on admitted evidence in the record.
The Appeals Board reviewed the record and found the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient evidence and clarity, necessitating further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3It 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.)
Labor Code sections 5907, 5908, 5908.5
The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction and may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award for good cause.
The Appeals Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction to grant reconsideration and reopen the record for further review.
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.