ADJ19868198 · April 20, 2026

The WCJ initially found no medical evidence supporting injury, but the WCAB found the QME reports were critical evidence that should have been admitted and that the WCJ erred in denying remote testimony and in proceeding without considering the QME reports, thus remanding for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 27, 2026 Findings and Order ("F&O"), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") found that applicant did not suffer a work-related injury, based upon a lack of supporting medical evidence. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred by failing admit and consider reports prepared by a Qualified Medical Evaluator ("QME") that found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment ("AOE/COE").

QME reports by Dr. Ethan Harris were available and referenced in the Pre-trial Conference Statement but were not appended due to counsel's oversight.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Board found the QME reports critical evidence that should have been admitted and considered before deciding the claim.

From the decision · page 8We turn next to the issue of the QME reporting. Here, both the pleadings and the record are frustratingly vague as to how or why the PTCS filed in this case did not contain applicant's exhibit and witness list. At a minimum, it appears that applicant's attorney was significantly remiss in failing to ensure that the page in question made it into the PTCS, and must accordingly shoulder the lion's share of the blame for what seems to have been a significant and very unfortunate oversight.

The WCJ denied applicant's petition to testify remotely without showing specific harm to defendant or the court's ability to adjudicate fairly.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Board found good cause existed to allow remote testimony and that denial was error, warranting remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 8Perhaps more importantly, neither the WCJ nor defendant raised any specific objection to applicant providing electronic testimony, or otherwise explained why applicant testifying electronically would cause some sort of articulable harm either to defendant's due process rights or to the ability of the WCJ to fairly adjudicate the case. In the absence of any such showing, we think good cause was stated by the petition, and that the WCJ should have granted it. Accordingly, once a new hearing date is set for this matter, we recommend that applicant renew his petition to appear remotely, and we encourage the WCJ to grant it unless some significant, specific and articulable harm would result from allowing that remote appearance.

Found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

The QME reports were critical evidence that the WCJ failed to consider, which was a basis for remand.

From the decision · page 2On August 29, 2025, applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed ("DOR"), which states in relevant part: "QMES [sic] Dr. Ethan Harris (Chico) has provided industrial reporting." (Declaration, at p. 7.) Defendant filed an Objection, arguing that discovery had not been completed because defendant had not yet been able to depose the QME. At a hearing on September 18, 2025, the matter was set for a priority conference 60 days later. (Minutes of Hearing ("MOH"), 9/18/2025, at p. 1.)

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5909.

The Board found the petition timely as the case was transmitted and notice given on February 20, 2026.

From the decision · page 4Former Labor Code 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, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation; McClune v. WCAB; Kuykendall v. WCAB

Decisions must be based on admitted evidence and substantial justice must be accomplished; the Board must further develop the record if evidence is insufficient.

The Board found the WCJ erred by not admitting critical QME evidence and denying remote testimony, thus remanding for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6It is the policy of the law to favor, whenever possible, a hearing on the merits. (Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 149]; see also Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478 [243 Cal. Rptr. 902] ("when a party in default moves promptly to seek relief, very slight evidence is required to justify a trial court's order setting aside a default.").) This is particularly true in workers' compensation cases, where there is a constitutional mandate "to accomplish substantial justice in all cases." (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4.)

Applicant's counsel failed to ensure QME reports were appended to the PTCS, but the reports were known and anticipated by both parties and available in EAMS at trial.

From the decision · page 8We turn next to the issue of the QME reporting. Here, both the pleadings and the record are frustratingly vague as to how or why the PTCS filed in this case did not contain applicant's exhibit and witness list. At a minimum, it appears that applicant's attorney was significantly remiss in failing to ensure that the page in question made it into the PTCS, and must accordingly shoulder the lion's share of the blame for what seems to have been a significant and very unfortunate oversight.