Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 5903(d)
Petitioner must demonstrate that newly discovered evidence could not have been produced at the hearing with reasonable diligence.
From the decision · page 2Turning to defendant's contention that reconsideration should be granted on the basis of
newly discovered evidence, Labor Code section 5903(d) provides that a petitioner must
demonstrate that "he or she could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced
[the evidence] at the hearing." (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) WCAB Rule 10974 states in part:
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days, but time may be tolled for due process reasons.
From the decision · page 1As an initial matter, Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration
is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) However, "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be
deprived of a substantial right without notice...." (Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992)
7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493].) In Shipley, the Appeals Board denied
applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Appeals Board had not acted on the petition
California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10974
WCAB Rule 10974
Requirements for petitions for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence.
From the decision · page 2Turning to defendant's contention that reconsideration should be granted on the basis of
newly discovered evidence, Labor Code section 5903(d) provides that a petitioner must
demonstrate that "he or she could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced
[the evidence] at the hearing." (Lab. Code, § 5903(d).) WCAB Rule 10974 states in part:
California Supreme Court case
Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 372
Relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence even if inconsistent with others.
From the decision · page 2In this case, the issue of applicant's entitlement to temporary disability was determined by
the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) and the Appeals Board based on the
medical evidence. The WCJ summarized applicant's trial testimony, but did not make explicit
findings on the credibility of that testimony. The WCJ found that applicant was not entitled to
additional temporary disability based on the reports of the panel qualified medical evaluator
(PQME), which the WCJ found more persuasive than the reports of applicant's primary treating
physician (PTP). (September 29, 2020 Opinion on Decision, p.6.) The WCJ explicitly stated that
she did not determine whether the PTP's reports were substantial medical evidence. (Id. at p. 7.)
The Appeals Board determined that the PTP's reports were substantial medical evidence. The
Appeals Board also found that the contemporaneous reporting of applicant's primary treating
physician was more persuasive than the stale PQME reporting. It is well-established that the
relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if
inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.
3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal. Comp. Cases 525].) Here, applicant's changed circumstances were not
addressed by the PQME and were addressed by her PTP.