ADJ14478546 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ Findings of Fact and Orders of December 8, 2025 rescinded; matter returned for further proceedings.

Defendant sought reconsideration of WCJ Findings of Fact and Orders issued December 8, 2025; WCJ recommended denial of petition; WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded WCJ decision, and returned matter for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

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.

Jurisdiction / venueRemandedlumbar spine · left lower extremity · left leg · left ankle · right lower extremity

The WCJ's 2023 Findings and Award did not address lumbar spine injury, leaving that issue undecided and not final, so reconsideration was improper on that issue; continuing jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 and good cause under section 5803 allow reopening for new and further disability or compensable consequence injury.

From the decision · page 8Here, the WCJ's February 2, 2023 findings did not comply with the requirement in section 5313 that the WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(5); Blackledge, supra, 75 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621.) In the 2023 proceeding, there were multiple body parts framed as issues for trial, including the left lower extremity, left leg, left ankle, and lumbar spine. The 2023 FA&O, however, only addressed injury to applicant's left lower extremity, left leg, and left ankle, and was silent as to injury to the lumbar spine. That is, the 2023 F&A included no finding regarding the additional body part of lumbar spine at issue here. Moreover, under Award in the F&A, it stated that "All other issues are deferred at this time." Thus, although the body part was listed as an issue in the minutes of hearing, and discussed in the Opinion on Decision, the issue was not actually "decided on the merits," as required. (Pacific Lumber, Co., supra, 37 Cal.4th 921, 943.)

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The 2023 Findings and Award did not include a finding on lumbar spine injury and deferred all other issues, making the lumbar spine injury issue not final or decided on the merits.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This precluded any party from filing a petition for reconsideration on the lumbar spine injury issue at that time, as there was no final order to challenge.

From the decision · page 8Here, the WCJ's February 2, 2023 findings did not comply with the requirement in section 5313 that the WCJ "make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy." (Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787(c)(5); Blackledge, supra, 75 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621.) In the 2023 proceeding, there were multiple body parts framed as issues for trial, including the left lower extremity, left leg, left ankle, and lumbar spine. The 2023 FA&O, however, only addressed injury to applicant's left lower extremity, left leg, and left ankle, and was silent as to injury to the lumbar spine. That is, the 2023 F&A included no finding regarding the additional body part of lumbar spine at issue here. Moreover, under Award in the F&A, it stated that "All other issues are deferred at this time." Thus, although the body part was listed as an issue in the minutes of hearing, and discussed in the Opinion on Decision, the issue was not actually "decided on the merits," as required. (Pacific Lumber, Co., supra, 37 Cal.4th 921, 943.)

QME Dr. Michael Fujinaka's medical opinion diagnosed lumbar spine radiculopathy and right lower extremity CRPS industrially related to the September 25, 2019 injury, supporting new and further disability and compensable consequence claims.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The WCAB relied on this opinion to support reopening and further proceedings on these body parts.

From the decision · page 3Applicant's Exhibit 8 is a re-evaluation report of QME Dr. Fujinaka dated February 3, 2025. In his report, Dr. Fujinaka took a history and provided a summary of previous evaluations. He stated since the prior evaluation, "[t]he applicant reports that he has fallen down the stairs a couple of times because of his legs giving out." (p. 5.) Applicant stated he has pain in his back, bilateral legs, and bilateral ankles, which increases with certain activities. He has difficulty sleeping due to the pain. (pp. 5-6.) Dr. Fujinaka reviewed and summarized medical reports and conducted a physical evaluation of applicant. He diagnosed applicant with: lumbar spine radiculopathy and "fracture, left ankle with subsequent and ongoing Complex Regional Pain Syndrome". (p. 16.)

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068

Petition for reconsideration must be filed only from a final order, decision, or award; lack of final order on lumbar spine injury precluded reconsideration at that time.

The WCJ's 2023 Findings and Award did not decide the lumbar spine injury issue on the merits, so it was not final and not subject to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 8A 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].)

Labor Code sections 5410, 5803; Broadway-Locust Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm. (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 287; Nickelsberg v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 288; Nicky Blair's Restaurant v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Macias) (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 941

The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5410 to award compensation for new and further disability within five years of injury; good cause to reopen may exist under section 5803 if new evidence renders original award inequitable.

The WCAB applied these standards to determine that reopening and further proceedings are appropriate for new and further disability or compensable consequence injury claims.

From the decision · page 8Section 5410, in conjunction with section 5803, defines the Appeals Board's continuing jurisdiction and authority, "to award compensation for a new disability resulting from the original

ADJ14478546 · March 9, 2026

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page