ADJ16907298 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted, Findings and Award of October 22, 2024 rescinded, case returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision

Petition for reconsideration granted, prior Findings and Award rescinded, case returned to trial level for further proceedings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.

AOE/COERemandedleft foot · left ankle

The record was insufficiently developed to determine industrial causation; further development was required to ensure substantial evidence and compliance with procedural rules.

From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, previously in this matter, on February 27, 2024, the WCJ who ultimately issued the October 22, 2024 Findings and Award issued an Order Vacating Submission and to Further Develop the Record. In the Order, the WCJ wrote, "In this case neither the opinion of Dr. Broderick nor that of Dr. Schakel is based on a review of the entire medical record. Dr. Schakel did not have an opportunity to review all of the applicant's medical records, which are substantial." (Order at p. 2.) The WCJ determined that further development of the record from Dr. Schakel and Dr. Broderick was necessary to have a full record upon which to base a decision.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.

PTPPartially credited · orthopedist

Opined that applicant's industrial trip and fall contributed to development of Charcot joint syndrome, despite pre-existing conditions.

The WCJ found Dr. Schakel's opinion relevant but noted the record was incomplete and required further development.

From the decision · page 3Although Dr. Schakel did author a supplemental report, it is not clear whether he reviewed all of the available records pertinent to the applicant's alleged injury, nor whether these records were made available to him.3 Although Dr. Schakel acknowledges that applicant had pre-existing conditions that predisposed him to Charcot joint syndrome, Dr. Schakel opines that applicant's industrial trip and fall contributed development of Charcot joint syndrome. (Undated report of Dr. Schakel, Ex. 2 at pp. 1-2.) Nevertheless, in order for this matter to be determined on a full record, and in order to ensure compliance with the WCJ's earlier February 27, 2024 Order, Dr. Schakel should review all pertinent medical records and issue a supplemental report documenting the documents reviewed and any conclusions based on the records review.

QMEPartially credited · orthopedist

Provided opinions on industrial causation that the WCJ was urged to follow instead of Dr. Schakel's.

The WCJ noted the defendant's argument favoring Dr. Broderick's opinions but found the record incomplete for a full decision.

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of Charcot joint syndrome. Defendant argues that the WCJ should have followed the opinions of qualified medical evaluator orthopedist David M. Broderick, M.D. rather than the opinions of primary treating physician orthopedist Mark E. Schakel, M.D. We have not received an answer. The WCJ who issued the Findings and Award has retired, so a different WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration.

ADJ16907298 · January 27, 2025

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