ADJ15636538 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration/Removal is denied.

Defendant seeks removal of Findings of Fact and Orders issued by WCJ denying defendant's Petition to Dismiss and not dismissing applicant's Petition to Reopen.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailedright ankle · lumbar spine · neck · left knee

The WCJ and WCAB found the Petition to Reopen was not fatally flawed despite lacking specificity, as it put defendant on notice of the grounds and allowed discovery to proceed; defendant's Petition to Dismiss was denied without prejudice, allowing refiling if no new disability is proven.

From the decision · page 5Next, defendant argues that applicant's Petition to Reopen should have been dismissed because it was skeletal. (Petition, p. 4, January 30, 2026, lines 1-15.) In Blanchard v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 590, 594-595, 40 Cal. Comp. Cases 784, cited by the WCJ in the Report, the Court of Appeals found that a petition to reopen that failed to specify the facts relied on, and was therefore technically insufficient, was not fatally flawed. We reach a similar conclusion here. Applicant titled her petition to reopen, "Petition to Reopen for New and

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant's Petition to Reopen was titled and reasoned to indicate worsening medical condition, sufficient to put defendant on notice despite lack of specificity.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This justified denying defendant's Petition to Dismiss and allowing the Petition to Reopen to proceed.

From the decision · page 6Further Disability/Good Cause per Labor Code 5410 and 5803," and the reason provided for the Petition to Reopen was, "[a]pplicant's medical condition has worsened, resulting in additional permanent disability and ongoing need for medical treatment." Although applicant's Petition to Reopen lacked specificity, the title of and reason provided for applicant's Petition to Reopen were sufficient to put defendant on notice that the grounds for applicant's Petition to Reopen were Labor Code sections 5410 and 5803 due to worsening medical condition.

Parties proceeded with discovery including PQME re-evaluation reports by Dr. Anand Shah, undermining defendant's argument for dismissal.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed the defendant was not prejudiced or irreparably harmed and that reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 17In the case of ADJ15636538 with the date of injury as December 8, 2021, the five years for the applicant to file a PTRO has not run. Furthermoe, the parties went forward with a PQME re- evaluation by Dr. Anand Shah who issued his reports dated September 5, 2025 and September 25, 2025, both of which were admitted into evidence. From this much, it is clear that the parties are moving forward with discovery, which appears to fly I the face of the defendant's position that the PTRO should be dismissed. Assuming arguendo that the defendant prevailed, it makes little sense to later gather the medical evidence from Dr. Shah who may support new and further disability and then have the applicant re-file prior to December 8, 2026. The defendant's position defies logic and serves only to promote delays, time and cost inefficiency, and increased judicial resources all of which fly in the face of our state's constitutional directives. The applicant is entitled to due process. She timely alleged new and further disability, and she is entitled to secure the medical evidence which will either prove or disprove her allegations. The defendant's petition should remain denied without prejudice. If the applicant fails to prove any new and further disability, the defendant would be free to file its petitions to dismiss once again and set forth its arguments in support thereof.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's Petition to Reopen titled and reasoned to indicate worsening medical condition, sufficient to put defendant on notice despite lack of specificity.

From the decision · page 6Further Disability/Good Cause per Labor Code 5410 and 5803," and the reason provided for the Petition to Reopen was, "[a]pplicant's medical condition has worsened, resulting in additional permanent disability and ongoing need for medical treatment." Although applicant's Petition to Reopen lacked specificity, the title of and reason provided for applicant's Petition to Reopen were sufficient to put defendant on notice that the grounds for applicant's Petition to Reopen were Labor Code sections 5410 and 5803 due to worsening medical condition.

treatment coursefavours Applicant prevailed

Parties proceeding with discovery including PQME re-evaluation reports by Dr. Anand Shah, undermining defendant's argument for dismissal.

From the decision · page 17In the case of ADJ15636538 with the date of injury as December 8, 2021, the five years for the applicant to file a PTRO has not run. Furthermoe, the parties went forward with a PQME re- evaluation by Dr. Anand Shah who issued his reports dated September 5, 2025 and September 25, 2025, both of which were admitted into evidence. From this much, it is clear that the parties are moving forward with discovery, which appears to fly I the face of the defendant's position that the PTRO should be dismissed. Assuming arguendo that the defendant prevailed, it makes little sense to later gather the medical evidence from Dr. Shah who may support new and further disability and then have the applicant re-file prior to December 8, 2026. The defendant's position defies logic and serves only to promote delays, time and cost inefficiency, and increased judicial resources all of which fly in the face of our state's constitutional directives. The applicant is entitled to due process. She timely alleged new and further disability, and she is entitled to secure the medical evidence which will either prove or disprove her allegations. The defendant's petition should remain denied without prejudice. If the applicant fails to prove any new and further disability, the defendant would be free to file its petitions to dismiss once again and set forth its arguments in support thereof.

ADJ15636538 · April 6, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page