What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted, March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted, March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
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The WCJ's March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact on date of injury and statute of limitations were rescinded due to insufficient substantial evidence and incomplete record development.
From the decision · page 10Accordingly, the record is not fully developed and the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence. We grant KForce's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's deposition testimony was inconsistent and did not support injury during KForce employment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This undermined the WCJ's finding of a single cumulative injury including KForce employment.
From the decision · page 10The decision here was based on the two QME reports, and applicant's deposition testimony in lieu of trial testimony. Applicant's deposition and the evaluation by the QME took place prior to KForce being joined as a party defendant, such that evidence in connection with applicant's work with KForce could not be fully developed or elicited. Due to the number of inconsistencies and the lack of information about applicant's actual duties at K-Force, applicant's deposition testimony is not sufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence. Pointedly, although Dr. Shaw provided supplemental medical reporting after KForce was joined, he never reevaluated applicant after K-Force was joined. As such, Dr. Shaw's medical reporting cannot be considered substantial evidence because it is based on an amorphous factual record and does not clearly discuss his conclusions with respect to causation. (See, Hegglin, supra, at p. 169.)
Dr. Shaw's medical reports were based on an incomplete factual record and did not clearly discuss causation with respect to KForce employment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led to rejection of Dr. Shaw's opinion as substantial evidence for the WCJ's findings.
From the decision · page 10The decision here was based on the two QME reports, and applicant's deposition testimony in lieu of trial testimony. Applicant's deposition and the evaluation by the QME took place prior to KForce being joined as a party defendant, such that evidence in connection with applicant's work with KForce could not be fully developed or elicited. Due to the number of inconsistencies and the lack of information about applicant's actual duties at K-Force, applicant's deposition testimony is not sufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence. Pointedly, although Dr. Shaw provided supplemental medical reporting after KForce was joined, he never reevaluated applicant after K-Force was joined. As such, Dr. Shaw's medical reporting cannot be considered substantial evidence because it is based on an amorphous factual record and does not clearly discuss his conclusions with respect to causation. (See, Hegglin, supra, at p. 169.)
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.
Dr. Shaw opined that 45% of the permanent disability was due to injury during employment with Macy's and 45% due to injury during employment with KForce.
Dr. Shaw's medical reports were considered but found insufficient to support the WCJ's findings due to incomplete factual record and lack of reevaluation after KForce was joined.
From the decision · page 10The decision here was based on the two QME reports, and applicant's deposition testimony in lieu of trial testimony. Applicant's deposition and the evaluation by the QME took place prior to KForce being joined as a party defendant, such that evidence in connection with applicant's work with KForce could not be fully developed or elicited. Due to the number of inconsistencies and the lack of information about applicant's actual duties at K-Force, applicant's deposition testimony is not sufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence. Pointedly, although Dr. Shaw provided supplemental medical reporting after KForce was joined, he never reevaluated applicant after K-Force was joined. As such, Dr. Shaw's medical reporting cannot be considered substantial evidence because it is based on an amorphous factual record and does not clearly discuss his conclusions with respect to causation. (See, Hegglin, supra, at p. 169.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc)
Substantial evidence must support the decisions by the Appeals Board, including medical opinions framed in terms of reasonable medical probability and based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history.
The WCJ's decision was found not based on substantial evidence due to incomplete record and insufficient medical opinion support.
From the decision · page 7It is accepted that substantial evidence must support the decisions by the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); 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].) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's deposition testimony was inconsistent and insufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence regarding injury during KForce employment.
From the decision · page 10The decision here was based on the two QME reports, and applicant's deposition testimony in lieu of trial testimony. Applicant's deposition and the evaluation by the QME took place prior to KForce being joined as a party defendant, such that evidence in connection with applicant's work with KForce could not be fully developed or elicited. Due to the number of inconsistencies and the lack of information about applicant's actual duties at K-Force, applicant's deposition testimony is not sufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence. Pointedly, although Dr. Shaw provided supplemental medical reporting after KForce was joined, he never reevaluated applicant after K-Force was joined. As such, Dr. Shaw's medical reporting cannot be considered substantial evidence because it is based on an amorphous factual record and does not clearly discuss his conclusions with respect to causation. (See, Hegglin, supra, at p. 169.)
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.