What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration and/or removal of Findings of Fact and Orders issued by WCJ on March 18, 2026, denied by WCAB panel on June 22, 2026.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 9, 2026.
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 good cause for additional panels in psychology and rheumatology, which the Appeals Board upheld, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the "Findings of Fact and Orders" (F&O) issued on March 18, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) panels in psychology and internal medicine were warranted and ordered the Medical Unit to issue additional panels accordingly.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ found good cause for additional QME panels in psychology and rheumatology specialties.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This finding supported the denial of defendant's petition for reconsideration and upheld the order for additional panels.
From the decision · page 4I found good cause for additional panels in the specialties of psychology and rheumatology, and issued an Order that the Medical Unit issue QME panels in those specialties. All other issues were deferred, with WCAB jurisdiction reserved.
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.
Diagnosed postconcussion syndrome, post-traumatic headache disorder, headache disorder, dizziness/disequilibrium, cognitive symptoms, and emotional symptoms; recommended brain trauma protocol MRI; noted vascular condition prior to injury; assigned 3% WPI for headache; suggested psychiatry QME if psychiatric issues are industrially related.
Supports the need for additional QME panels in psychology and rheumatology due to complex symptoms and possible psychiatric impact.
From the decision · page 2Joint Exhibits 1 through 5 are reports of QME Dr. Anderson. In his April 6, 2024, report, Dr. Anderson took a history of injury from applicant. He stated the injury occurred when applicant was driving for work and "[a]nother vehicle struck the driver's door region, causing airbags to deploy." Following the incident, she felt: ringing in the ears, pain all over the whole body, dizziness and off balance. (Joint Exhibit 5, p. 11.) He conducted an examination of applicant and reviewed medical records. He noted that applicant had a vascular condition of occlusion of blood vessels prior to this industrial injury. (pp 14-15.) Dr. Anderson diagnosed applicant with: postconcussion syndrome, post-traumatic headache disorder, headache disorder, dizziness/disequilibrium, cognitive symptoms, and emotional symptoms. (p. 20.) He then discussed the difficulty with diagnosing a concussion in this instance. He recommended a "brain trauma protocol MRI". (p. 37.)
Diagnosed probable fibromyalgia related to the industrial injury and PTSD; recommended further diagnostic studies and treatment; opined accident initiated fibromyalgia.
Supports entitlement to additional rheumatology panel due to fibromyalgia diagnosis linked to industrial injury.
From the decision · page 3Applicant's Exhibit 1 consists of two reports of Dr. Britton. The July 9, 2024, report is entitled "Medical-Legal Rheumatology Consultation/Evaluation". In his report, Dr. Britton gave a history of present illness, conducted a medical record review, reviewed various histories, reviewed symptoms, and conducted a physical examination. He diagnosed her with "probable fibromyalgia" and "history of vascular brain condition". (p. 17.) He recommended further diagnostic studies. He stated, "although it is clear the patient had a variety of medical problems and appointments antecedent to the accident with the car and consequent injuries, I feel with medical probability that this accident formed an initiating condition of the fibromyalgia." (pp. 17-18.)
Impression of severe postconcussion syndrome, traumatic brain injury, musculoskeletal issues, chronic pain, and psychological/psychiatric issues.
Supports the need for additional panels including psychology due to multiple complex conditions.
From the decision · page 3Applicant's Exhibit 2 is a report of Dr. Helman dated February 27, 2024. In his report, Dr. Helman stated in relevant part, "it is my impression that in addition to her severe postconcussion syndrome and traumatic brain injury, [applicant] clearly has other issues as well including musculoskeletal issues, chronic pain, and even psychological and psychiatric issues..." (p. 1.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 regarding timely action on petitions for reconsideration
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by section 5909(a) to deny the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Former Labor Code2 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony at trial and medical reports supporting injury and need for additional panels
From the decision · page 2The matter proceeded to trial on February 10, 2026. There were fifteen exhibits offered into evidence. Additionally, applicant testified at trial.
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.