What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration dismissed; petition for removal granted; WCJ decision rescinded and substituted with order granting additional neurology panel and correcting case number.
Applicant sought removal and reconsideration of the WCJ's January 23, 2026 Findings of Fact and Orders denying an additional neurology panel; the WCAB dismissed the reconsideration petition as interlocutory and granted removal, rescinding the WCJ decision and substituting a new order granting the additional neurology panel.
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 WCAB found good cause for an additional neurology panel based on Dr. Chow's recommendation, applicant's symptoms, and the stipulation of treating physician Dr. Lin reporting headaches, despite defendant's objection to industrial causation.
From the decision · page 9Given the above, we find that a QME in the specialty of neurology (MPN) to address the applicant's post-concussion headaches, post-concussion syndrome and closed head injury, as well as any industrial causation of same, is appropriate.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Chow recommended an additional neurology panel to address post-concussion headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and closed head injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This recommendation established good cause for the additional panel under WCAB Rule 31.7.
From the decision · page 6On July 21, 2025, Dr. Chow issued a supplemental report responding to additional questions posed to him by applicant's counsel, including the following specific question: "Please state whether you can address the Applicant's head/headaches or if the Applicant should have an additional QME/AME in the specialty of neurology, for the claimed head injury/headaches..." (Joint Exhibit 101, at p. 2.) In response to same, Dr. Chow requested the parties schedule a
Applicant's primary treating physician, Dr. Lin, reported headaches consistent with neurological injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the claim of neurological injury and need for additional panel despite defendant's objection to industrial causation.
From the decision · page 8and the unrebutted testimony of the applicant, applicant is suffering from physical manifestations of a head injury including mild posterior superior scalp swelling/hematoma and mild edema at the left posterior superior scalp, as well as headaches. Further, at trial, the parties stipulated that primary treating physician, Eduardo Lin, M.D., reported applicant's headaches, although defendant objected as to whether the headaches were industrial in nature. (Minutes, October 21, 2025, at p. 2:15-17.)
Applicant's unrebutted testimony and diagnostic testing showed physical manifestations of head injury including scalp swelling and headaches.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility and objective evidence favored applicant's claim for additional neurology panel.
From the decision · page 8and the unrebutted testimony of the applicant, applicant is suffering from physical manifestations of a head injury including mild posterior superior scalp swelling/hematoma and mild edema at the left posterior superior scalp, as well as headaches. Further, at trial, the parties stipulated that primary treating physician, Eduardo Lin, M.D., reported applicant's headaches, although defendant objected as to whether the headaches were industrial in nature. (Minutes, October 21, 2025, at p. 2:15-17.)
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.
Recommended additional QME/AME in neurology to address post-concussion headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and closed head injury.
Dr. Chow's July 21, 2025 supplemental report recommended an additional neurology panel to address unresolved neurological issues.
From the decision · page 6On July 21, 2025, Dr. Chow issued a supplemental report responding to additional questions posed to him by applicant's counsel, including the following specific question: "Please state whether you can address the Applicant's head/headaches or if the Applicant should have an additional QME/AME in the specialty of neurology, for the claimed head injury/headaches..." (Joint Exhibit 101, at p. 2.) In response to same, Dr. Chow requested the parties schedule a
Did not opine that an additional neurology panel was needed; diagnosed possible mild neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury.
The WCJ gave great weight to Dr. Munday's opinion but noted neurology and neuropsychology are different specialties and Dr. Munday did not recommend an additional neurology panel.
From the decision · page 8Thus, while the WCJ found good cause for the issuance of such an order at that time, and we cannot locate a timely objection to the order, and the matter proceeded to trial on October 21, 2025 on the issue of the additional panels. The WCJ's subsequent F&O denying a panel in the field of neurology relied on the reporting of neuropsychologist agreed medical evaluator (AME), Claude S. Munday, Ph.D., as the basis upon which to deny applicant's request, noting that as an AME, Dr. Munday's opinions are given great weight, and that Dr. Munday never opined that an additional neurology panel is needed. While Dr. Munday was selected as an AME in the field of neuropsychology, neurology and neuropsychology are different specialties though they may treat the same body parts, head/brain.
Reported applicant's headaches, supporting the claim of neurological injury.
The parties stipulated that Dr. Lin, the primary treating physician, reported headaches, supporting the claim of neurological injury despite defendant's objection to industrial causation.
From the decision · page 8and the unrebutted testimony of the applicant, applicant is suffering from physical manifestations of a head injury including mild posterior superior scalp swelling/hematoma and mild edema at the left posterior superior scalp, as well as headaches. Further, at trial, the parties stipulated that primary treating physician, Eduardo Lin, M.D., reported applicant's headaches, although defendant objected as to whether the headaches were industrial in nature. (Minutes, October 21, 2025, at p. 2:15-17.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 31.7
Good cause for issuance of an additional panel in a different specialty requires a showing that it is needed to assist in resolving disputed medical issues expeditiously and justly.
Applied to determine entitlement to additional neurology panel based on Dr. Chow's recommendation and unresolved neurological issues.
From the decision · page 7WCAB Rule 31.7 provides the specific procedure by which an additional panel in a different specialty may be obtained. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 31.7). WCAB Rule 31.7 states, in relevant part:
Lab. Code, 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board or deemed denied.
Applied to determine timeliness of petition and procedural posture of reconsideration versus removal.
From the decision · page 3Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony and diagnostic testing showed physical manifestations of head injury including scalp swelling and headaches.
From the decision · page 8and the unrebutted testimony of the applicant, applicant is suffering from physical manifestations of a head injury including mild posterior superior scalp swelling/hematoma and mild edema at the left posterior superior scalp, as well as headaches. Further, at trial, the parties stipulated that primary treating physician, Eduardo Lin, M.D., reported applicant's headaches, although defendant objected as to whether the headaches were industrial in nature. (Minutes, October 21, 2025, at p. 2:15-17.)
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.