What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued July 28, 2025, challenging the medical evidence and impairment ratings. The WCJ's Report recommended denial of the Petition, and the Appeals Board reviewed and denied the Petition on November 4, 2025.
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.
Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedlumbar spine · right hip · left hip · right thigh · scarring
The PQME's expert medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or properly investigate before trial.
From the decision · page 5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)