What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 4, 2025, and the Board acted within 60 days as required by Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing made the Board's action on the petition timely and valid, supporting the grant of reconsideration solely to admit evidence.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 4, 2025
and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, May 3, 2025. The next business day that
is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, May 5, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§ 10600(b).)1 This decision is issued by or on Monday, May 5, 2025, so that we have timely acted
on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
Applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 21, 2025 despite alleging defective service of the Findings and Award.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This showed no prejudice from the alleged defective service, supporting denial of that claim.
From the decision · page 91. Alleged Defective Service
Applicant first contends defective service of the Findings and Award and Opinion on
Decision. Applicant references his letter dated February 12, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78871515)
wherein he alleges he received an empty envelope. The Joint Findings and Award and Joint
Opinion on Decision note service on the applicant by mail on January 27, 2025. (EAMS Doc
ID No. 78803295 at pg. 4 and EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196 at pg. 17). Notwithstanding the
alleged state of service, the applicant was not prejudiced as he filed a timely Petition for
Reconsideration on February 21, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78894725). The merits of the Petition
are discussed below.
No evidence was presented to support allegations of sexual assault against Dr. Faddoul, and the medical reports were found substantial and persuasive.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the Board's reliance on Dr. Faddoul's reports and denial of the challenge to his reporting.
From the decision · page 11There is simply no evidence apart from Applicant's statements that Dr. Faddoul engaged
in any wrongdoing. Dr. Faddoul was not present to answer the allegations and Applicant presented
no proof of what may have occurred. Applicant has confirmed he has not pursued any remedies in
civil or criminal court, has filed no police reports, and has not consulted an attorney as to his rights
(if any) related to these allegations. Weighing the evidence as is relevant to the present case, I
found Applicant's argument on this matter to be unpersuasive as to the substantiality of Dr.
Faddoul's reporting. This court made no comment as to Applicant's credibility with respect to
whether the allegations are true, only that Dr. Faddoul's reporting was not rendered non-substantial
based on the evidence presented at trial.