Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903
A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award.
The WCJ's order was interlocutory and not final, so the petition was subject to dismissal.
From the decision · page 2A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision,
or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either
"determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler
(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer)
(1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661])
or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v.
McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117
The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue.
The Board concurred with the WCJ's decision to order further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is
insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62
Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional
mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Board may not leave matters
undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.) The preferred
procedure is to allow supplementation of the medical record by the physicians who have already
reported in the case. (McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2003) 67
Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc).)
Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 418 (Appeals Board en banc)
The Labor Code does not require an employee to return to the same panel QME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury.
The Board clarified that parties may agree to return to the same evaluator but absent agreement, a new evaluator may be obtained for subsequent claims.
From the decision · page 3In Navarro v. City of Montebello (2014) 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 418 (Appeals Board en
banc), the Appeals Board held en banc that the "Labor Code does not require an employee to return
to the same panel QME for an evaluation of a subsequent claim of injury." (Navarro, supra, 79
Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 420.)