What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings of Fact, Joint Orders by the WCJ; the WCAB granted reconsideration and deferred final decision 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 WCAB found the record was not properly developed and granted reconsideration to allow further study and a just decision.
From the decision · page 11Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The medical evidence and opinion on industrial causation were incomplete, stale, and not properly developed.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of substantial evidence led the WCAB to grant reconsideration to allow further study and a just decision.
From the decision · page 11Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's decision on the issue of industrial causation. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)
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.
Found applicant's condition permanent and stationary as of May 9, 2024, diagnosed symptomatic cervical and lumbar disc disease with radiculopathy, apportioned disability among injuries and cumulative trauma.
From the decision · page 4The applicant was re-evaluated by Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Peter Mandell, M.D. on May 9, 2024. (Defendant's Exhibit KK, p. 1.) No updated medical records were provided to Dr. Mandell. (Id. at p. 6.) In his summary of the interval history from his prior exam, Dr. Madell notes that the applicant worked until January 2024 when she was taken off work by a doctor due to pain. (Id. at p. 2.) The applicant had abdominal hernia repair surgery about one year prior to the re-evaluation. (Id. at p. 3.) She had several falls which further injured her back. (Ibid.)
Diagnosed cervicogenic headaches and sleep disturbance on an industrial basis; recommended psychiatric evaluation for anxiety, depression, and other symptoms; recommended polysomnogram for possible obstructive sleep apnea.
From the decision · page 5Defendant's Exhibit JJ: Panel QME report of Lawrence Richman, M.D., dated May 14, 2024. Defendant's Exhibit NN: Transcript of the deposition of Lawrence Richman, M.D., dated October 30, 2024.
Diagnosed GERD and hiatal hernia; noted applicant's complaints including shortness of breath; found disability not permanent and stationary as of May 17, 2024 due to need for further record review.
From the decision · page 7Defendant's Exhibit LL: Panel QME report of Andrew McClintock Greenberg, M.D., dated May 17, 2024. Defendant's Exhibit MM: Panel QME report of Andrew McClintock Greenberg, M.D., dated December 13, 2024.
From the decision · page 3Parties stipulated, in part based on the results of the prior trial, that in case number ADJ12260890, the applicant Zoila the applicant, while employed on November 29, 2017, as a custodian, Occupational Group Number 340, at San Francisco, California, by San Francisco State University, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her low back. In case number ADJ13493291, the applicant, while employed during the period through August 5, 2020, as a custodian, Occupational Group Number 340, by San Francisco State University, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her low back. In case number ADJ19093281, the applicant, while employed during the period through January 30, 2024, by San Francisco State University, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her low back. For all dates of injury, the employer was legally uninsured. The applicant's primary treating physician for all dates of injury is Dr. Toufan Razi.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
The WCAB reviewed the record to determine if substantial evidence supported industrial causation.
From the decision · page 10III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) Moreover, it 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.
Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274
Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
The WCAB found the medical evidence was not substantial due to incompleteness and staleness, warranting reconsideration.
From the decision · page 10III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) Moreover, it 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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's medical evidence was incomplete, stale, and not properly developed, leading to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 11Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's decision on the issue of industrial causation. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)
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.