What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of the merits and the record.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award issued November 12, 2025, which found applicant sustained industrial injury and was 100% permanently disabled. The Appeals Board grants reconsideration and defers a final decision pending further review of the record and applicable law.
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 Appeals Board could not determine from the record what applicant's scheduled rating is, whether the medical evidence is substantial, or whether apportionment was properly addressed. Further review and possible development of the record are required.
From the decision · page 7Here, upon preliminary review of the record, we are unable to determine what applicant's scheduled rating is. As such, we will grant reconsideration to further study the record and to determine if it is possible to identify applicant's scheduled rating or if further proceedings may be necessary on this point.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record does not clearly establish applicant's scheduled rating or whether the medical evidence is substantial, and the apportionment determination was not meaningfully revisited.
Favours neutral
These gaps in the record prevent a final determination of permanent disability and apportionment, requiring further review and possible development of the record.
From the decision · page 7Here, upon preliminary review of the record, we are unable to determine what applicant's scheduled rating is. As such, we will grant reconsideration to further study the record and to determine if it is possible to identify applicant's scheduled rating or if further proceedings may be necessary on this point.
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. Shalom opined on industrial causation for cervical and upper extremity conditions, but his apportionment determination (40% to non-industrial factors for cervical spine) was not meaningfully revisited, and his responses to defense questions were found to be evasive and unsupported, requiring further review to determine if his opinions are substantial evidence.
The Appeals Board found Dr. Shalom's opinions may not be substantial evidence and require further review.
From the decision · page 8Here, without the benefit of further review, we are unclear if PQME Dr. Shalom's opinions are substantial evidence.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of disability, but may be rebutted by showing factual error or by vocational evidence after a scheduled rating is established.
The Appeals Board could not determine applicant's scheduled rating and found further proceedings may be necessary to establish it before considering rebuttal or vocational evidence.
From the decision · page 7Implicit in the ability to provide rebuttal is the requirement that physical injuries must first be evaluated under the AMA Guides to establish a scheduled rating, otherwise there is nothing to rebut. After a scheduled rating is provided, a party may then seek to rebut the scheduled rating.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Shalom's responses to defense counsel's questions about activities of daily living, overlap, and synergistic effect were evasive and redirected to prior reports and deposition testimony, raising concerns about the substantiality of his opinions.
From the decision · page 8Instead of providing reasoned answers to the questions asked, Dr. Shalom redirects the reader to prior reporting and deposition testimony. On the surface, such evasive and unsupported
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.