ADJ18796354 — California WCAB decision

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seeks reconsideration and removal of the Amended Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on December 2, 2025, which rescinded prior findings and ordered further development of the record regarding cumulative injury claims.

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.

Reopening / new and further disabilityApplicant prevailedcervical spine · thoracic spine · lumbar spine · bilateral shoulders · bilateral upper extremities · bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

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 In the F&O, the WCJ rescinded his October 22, 2025 decision in ADJ18796354 and ADJ18797375 and found in ADJ18796354 that applicant, while employed during the period ending December 1, 2023,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 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.)

ADJ18796354 · April 14, 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