What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued November 24, 2025, which found applicant's psyche injury claim presumed compensable and defendant failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 5402.
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 defendant failed to provide evidence discovered after the 90-day period to rebut the presumption of compensability under section 5402, and the medical evidence established industrial causation.
From the decision · page 4Here, defendant provided no such evidence. Defendant contends that applicant's failure to present substantial medical evidence of a psyche claim effectively rebuts the presumption of compensability under section 5402. (Petition, p. 2.) This is not the standard. Additionally, to the extent that defendant conflates compensability with the nature and extent of injury, we remind defendant that the issue of nature and extent of injury has yet to be determined. The medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis, however, does establish industrial causation.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant filed a Claim Form on June 28, 2023, and no denial was issued by defendant within 90 days, establishing the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established the presumption of compensability, shifting the burden to defendant to rebut.
From the decision · page 4Pursuant to section 5402(b)(1), "[i]f liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the Claim Form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division." As noted above, the Claim Form was filed and served on June 28, 2023. As such, defendant had 90 days from June 28, 2023, to deny applicant's claim. To date, no denial has been issued. Further, during the October 2, 2025 trial, the parties stipulated to the lack of a denial and the applicability of the 5402(b)(1) presumption. (MOH and SOE, October 2, 2025, p. 2.)
Defendant provided no evidence discovered after the 90-day period to rebut the presumption of compensability under section 5402.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without such evidence, the presumption stands and favors applicant.
From the decision · page 4Here, defendant provided no such evidence. Defendant contends that applicant's failure to present substantial medical evidence of a psyche claim effectively rebuts the presumption of compensability under section 5402. (Petition, p. 2.) This is not the standard. Additionally, to the extent that defendant conflates compensability with the nature and extent of injury, we remind defendant that the issue of nature and extent of injury has yet to be determined. The medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis, however, does establish industrial causation.
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.
Medical reporting and deposition testimony established industrial causation for applicant's psyche injury claim.
The medical report and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis were relied upon to establish industrial causation and to reject defendant's rebuttal argument.
From the decision · page 4Here, defendant provided no such evidence. Defendant contends that applicant's failure to present substantial medical evidence of a psyche claim effectively rebuts the presumption of compensability under section 5402. (Petition, p. 2.) This is not the standard. Additionally, to the extent that defendant conflates compensability with the nature and extent of injury, we remind defendant that the issue of nature and extent of injury has yet to be determined. The medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis, however, does establish industrial causation.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5402
Labor Code section 5402 presumption of compensability
Once the Claim Form is filed and no denial is issued within 90 days, the injury is presumed compensable, shifting the burden to the defendant to rebut with evidence discovered after the 90-day period.
From the decision · page 4Pursuant to section 5402(b)(1), "[i]f liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the Claim Form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division." As noted above, the Claim Form was filed and served on June 28, 2023. As such, defendant had 90 days from June 28, 2023, to deny applicant's claim. To date, no denial has been issued. Further, during the October 2, 2025 trial, the parties stipulated to the lack of a denial and the applicability of the 5402(b)(1) presumption. (MOH and SOE, October 2, 2025, p. 2.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis establishing industrial causation
From the decision · page 4Here, defendant provided no such evidence. Defendant contends that applicant's failure to present substantial medical evidence of a psyche claim effectively rebuts the presumption of compensability under section 5402. (Petition, p. 2.) This is not the standard. Additionally, to the extent that defendant conflates compensability with the nature and extent of injury, we remind defendant that the issue of nature and extent of injury has yet to be determined. The medical reporting and deposition testimony of Dr. Davis, however, does establish industrial causation.
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.