ADJ10421975 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is granted. Final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and entire record.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 19, 2024 Findings and Award, Orders. The WCJ found admitted industrial injury to the low back with 27% permanent disability but deferred causation, permanent disability, apportionment, and future medical care for bilateral hips pending further record development. The WCJ ordered a psychology QME panel and deferred the internal medicine QME panel issue. The WCJ denied due process denial claims. The Appeals Board grants reconsideration and defers final decision pending further review.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold December 29, 2023.

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailedlow back · bilateral hips · psychology · internal medicine

The Appeals Board found that the record was incomplete and inconsistent, and that the WCJ's decision did not adequately address all issues, warranting reconsideration and further development of the record.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117; Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396

Decisions of the Appeals Board must be based on admitted evidence in the record; the record must be adequate and complete to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision; the WCJ must set forth reasons and evidence relied on for each issue; the WCJ and Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where evidence is insufficient; the Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to ensure substantial justice in all cases.

The Appeals Board preliminarily reviewed the record and found it incomplete and inconsistent, indicating further development of the record is appropriate.

From the decision · page 2I. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ's decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313.) "It is the responsibility of the parties and the WCJ to ensure that the record is complete when a case is submitted for decision on the record. At a minimum, the record must contain, in properly organized form, the issues submitted for decision, the admissions and stipulations of the parties, and admitted evidence." (Hamilton, supra, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 475.) The WCJ's decision must "set[] forth clearly and concisely the reasons for the decision made on each issue, and the evidence relied on," so that "the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, [can] ascertain the basis for the decision[.]... For the opinion on decision to be meaningful, the WCJ must refer with specificity to an adequate and completely developed record." (Id.

ADJ10421975 · March 28, 2024

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

The rules the panel named

About this page