What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's order for an additional QME panel in psychology.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Facts and Order and Opinion on Decision issued November 8, 2023, challenging the order for an additional QME panel in psychology to determine causation.
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 WCJ found insufficient medical evidence on causation and ordered the additional QME panel to develop the record. The WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant and upheld the order.
From the decision · page 3Here, the WCJ determined that there is insufficient medical evidence upon which the threshold issue of causation may be determined. (Report, p. 3.) Where there is insufficient evidence on a threshold issue, the WCJ has a duty to further develop the record. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McClune) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 404 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924].) The WCJ has the authority to order additional medical evidence when required for substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 504, 508 (writ den.); McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc); McClune, supra.)