What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration and Removal is denied; the Amended Findings and Orders are corrected to add a heading with case numbers; further development of the record is ordered regarding cumulative injury claims.
Defendant seeks reconsideration and removal of the Amended Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on December 2, 2025, which rescinded prior findings and ordered further development of the record regarding cumulative injury claims.
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 the record needed further development regarding the cumulative injury claim, deferring all other issues pending this development, and the Board denied reconsideration of this order as it did not irreparably harm the defendant.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found the record lacked substantial evidence to support a finding on whether the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, were part of the single cumulative injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of substantial evidence led to the order for further development of the record and deferral of all other issues.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.
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.
Dr. Derby found a single cumulative injury through December 1, 2023, involving multiple body parts including bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and noted the applicant was not yet at maximum medical improvement due to recent surgery. He indicated apportionment would be addressed at MMI.
The WCJ ordered further development of the record based on Dr. Derby's incomplete reporting on whether the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, were part of the single cumulative injury.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc)
Substantial evidence must be based on reasonable medical probability and supported by adequate examination and history.
The WCJ ordered further development of the record due to incomplete medical evidence from the QME, deferring other issues pending this development.
From the decision · page 4Decisions of the WCJ and the Workers' Compensation 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].) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Not all expert medical opinion constitutes substantial evidence.
South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
An employee bears the burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Board affirmed the need for medical evidence to establish injury AOE/COE and deferred issues pending further development.
From the decision · page 7An employee bears the burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) An injury must be proximately caused by the employment in order to be compensable. (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(3).) Proximate cause in workers' compensation requires that the employment be a contributing cause of the injury. (Clark, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 297- 298.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Incomplete and ambiguous QME reporting by Dr. Derby on whether bilateral upper extremities are part of the cumulative injury
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration, and in the alternative removal of the Amended Findings and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 2, 2025. In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023, as a tool and die specialist by defendant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to various body parts; and that the record requires further development in the form of further reporting or deposition testimony by the qualified medical evaluator (QME) Ryan Derby, M.D., "as to whether the bilateral upper extremities are part of the single cumulative injury he finds." With respect to both cases, the WCJ ordered further discovery with the QME Dr. Derby "with respect to whether the single cumulative injury he finds includes the bilateral upper extremities, including carpal tunnel syndrome, and if so, how and why he believes that to be the case" and he suggested "a QME re-exam to determine if the applicant's other injuries, as found by the QME are currently P&S and ratable." Finally, he ordered that all other issues were deferred.
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.