What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; prior Findings and Award rescinded; new findings substituted; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings on deferred issues of last date of injurious exposure, date of injury under section 5412, and liability period under section 5500.5.
Petition for reconsideration granted, prior Findings and Award rescinded, new findings substituted, and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings on deferred issues.
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 and the Board concurred that the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning employment with both employers, supported by QME Dr. Murphy's report and applicant's testimony about similar job duties.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ found applicant sustained a single cumulative injury spanning her employment with both Seenager and Pacifica. (Finding of Fact No. 1.) In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ explained that QME Dr. Murphy found that applicant sustained a cumulative injury as a result of repetitive standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, squatting and lifting for both employers. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-6.) The Report further notes applicant's testimony that her work activities for Pacifica were "not significantly more or different than the ones for Seenager...she lifted people, not packages, the weights were equivalent; and 90% of her work required that she be on her feet." (Report, at p. 4.) Based on applicant's testimony, the description of her job duties and physical requirements of both positions, as well as the QME's causation analysis, the WCJ determined there to be but one cumulative injury spanning both employments. (Finding of Fact No. 1; Opinion on Decision at pp. 5-6.)