What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by lien claimant Medland Medical seeking review of WCJ Findings and Order dated April 3, 2026, disallowing lien for failure to prove injury AOE/COE; WCJ recommended denial of petition; WCAB grants reconsideration and defers final decision pending further review.
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 lien claimant failed to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish injury AOE/COE based on the medical record and evidentiary record submitted. The ultimate conclusion of industrial causation was deferred to the Trier of Fact, and the WCJ found no sufficient evidence to support the lien claimant's claim.
From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Medland Medical seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 6, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that, while employed as a Machine Operator/Packer, applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her bilateral arms, bilateral hands, back, bilateral hips, and bilateral legs. The WCJ further found that the case in chief settled via Compromise and Release with an Order Approving issuing October 14, 2025; that lien claimant did not meet the burden of proof on the injury AOE/COE, such that the lien is disallowed in its entirety. Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered that lien claimant's lien be disallowed in its entirety.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant did not present sufficient evidence to establish injury AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure resulted in disallowance of the lien by the WCJ and was the basis for the reconsideration petition.
From the decision · page 5As already noted in the Findings and Order/Opinion on Decision, the parties stipulated the matter would be submitted solely on the evidentiary record. The medical record presented established that the applicant may have an injury, but it did not establish that any such alleged injury was connected to the employment or employer in this current matter. Thus, without any further evidence presented on behalf of the petitioner, they have failed to meet their burden of proof.
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.
QME Doney opined that the applicant's job duties could have resulted in cumulative trauma to the right shoulder and lower back, but there was no evidence of symptoms while actively working for the employer, leaving the ultimate causation determination to the Trier of Fact.
The opinion was considered but the burden of proof was not met by the lien claimant to establish injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 4Based on the denial of the claim, and in accordance with Labor Code Section 4062.2, the parties presented to QME Dr. Shane Doney, D.C., to resolve the AOE/COE dispute in this matter. As noted in the Petition for Reconsideration, QME Doney reported,
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code Section 5705
Burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue.
Lien claimant must prove injury AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence.
From the decision · page 4Under Labor Code Section 5705, the burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue.
Labor Code Section 3202.5
All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.
Lien claimant failed to meet burden of proof on injury AOE/COE issue.
From the decision · page 5"All parties and lien claimant shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence in order that all parties are considered equal before the law. `Preponderance of the evidence' means that evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth. When weighing the evidence, the test is not the relative number of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of evidence."
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical record did not establish connection of injury to employment; no further evidence presented by lien claimant
From the decision · page 5As already noted in the Findings and Order/Opinion on Decision, the parties stipulated the matter would be submitted solely on the evidentiary record. The medical record presented established that the applicant may have an injury, but it did not establish that any such alleged injury was connected to the employment or employer in this current matter. Thus, without any further evidence presented on behalf of the petitioner, they have failed to meet their burden of proof.
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.