What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the December 24, 2025 Findings and Award is denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award issued December 24, 2025, which the WCAB panel denied on March 25, 2026.
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.
ApportionmentApplicant prevailedarm · hand · back · hips · shoulder
The QME's reports constitute substantial medical evidence showing no apportionment to the applicant's permanent disability, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal evidence.
From the decision · page 4II. Defendant contends that the QME's reports do not constitute substantial medical evidence and that further discovery is necessary. For the reasons stated in the WCJ's Opinion, we agree with the WCJ that the QME's reports constitute substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. A WCJ's decision must be based on admitted evidence and must be supported by substantial evidence (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton supra, at 476, citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350].) Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab.