ADJ21919813 · October 6, 2026

The WCJ's dismissal of ADJ21919813 as duplicative was improper due to lack of medical evidence and failure to apply required legal analysis; the WCAB deferred the issue pending further medical development and rescinded the dismissal.

From the decision · page 5In this matter, the only practical difference in filing two applications appears to be that applicant does not need to show “good cause” to obtain a QME panel in a second specialty. We find that the WCJ improperly found that these cases are duplicative without considering the evidence or conducting the analysis discussed in Ortiz, supra. We therefore grant reconsideration, rescind the WCJ’s decision, and enter a new decision deferring the issues of whether these applications alleged duplicative injuries or whether the applicant sustained one or multiple (or any) cumulative injuries. We find that defendant is not entitled to stay of the QME process. We note that the WCJ states that applicant’s objection to the WCJ’s findings were not timely because the WCJ appeared to state at the May 18, 2026 trial that he was finding the cases duplicative, and this statement was noted in the Minutes. However, the Minutes show the case as “submitted” and these findings were not final until an actual decision was issued and served as required by Labor Code section 5313. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order of July 10, 2026 is GRANTED.

No medical evidence or testimony was presented at trial to support the WCJ's finding that the two cases were duplicative.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without medical evidence, the WCJ's dismissal was improper and the issue must be deferred for further medical development.

The two applications were filed simultaneously, unlike in Garcia where the duplicative application was filed later for an improper purpose.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This distinction undermines the WCJ's finding of duplicative claims and supports reconsideration.

From the decision · page 5While it may well turn out to be the case that this case is an example of the general rule explained in Gravlin, supra, the record herein does not contain the evidence and analysis to reach the conclusion that these cases are duplicative. The WCJ in this case relied on Garcia v. CKE Holdings (2021) 2021 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 149 (Appeals Bd. panel), where the WCJ found two cases duplicative due to complete overlap of periods of exposure and, unlike the present case, complete overlap of alleged body parts injured. We note that in Garcia, the evidentiary record included applicant’s trial testimony, whereas in this case there was no true evidence taken. Additionally, we note that unlike in the present case, the WCJ in Garcia determined that the duplicative application was filed for an improper purpose. Unlike here where the two applications were filed simultaneously, the allegedly duplicative application in Garcia was filed a year and a half after the first application, when the first case was already set for trial and discovery had been closed, so it appears that the second application was filed as an end-run against the closure of discovery.

Appeals Board Rule 10455 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10455)

Only one application shall be filed for each injury; duplicative applications are subject to summary dismissal.

The WCJ applied this rule to dismiss ADJ21919813 as duplicative without sufficient evidence.

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The WCAB timely acted on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 2Under Labor Code section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on August 7, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is October 6, 2026. This decision is issued by or on October 6, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a). Labor Code section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case.

No testimony or medical evidence was taken at trial; only defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, applicant's objection, and QME panels were in the record.