What the panel ordered
Petitions for reconsideration and removal denied.p. 6
Petitions for reconsideration and removal filed by applicant and defendant seeking review of the WCJ's Findings and Order dated July 30, 2026.
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.
Defendant blocked applicant from proceeding with orthopedic QME evaluation; no evidence was submitted on orthopedic injuries; WCJ found no evidence to base decision on those body parts; Appeals Board denied defendant's petition to remove further development.
From the decision · page 5461, 465, emphasis added.) Here, the parties and the WCJ appear to be laboring under a misconception as to what constitutes a denial of injury to a body part in contrast to what constitutes injury arising out of and in the course of employment. It is true that we cannot find injury AOE/COE without identifying a body part. But it is also true that a finding of no injury to an individual body part does not mean that there is no cumulative injury whatsoever. Here, defendant pushed for a trial on the issue of AOE/COE to applicant’s psyche. When applicant attempted to proceed with an orthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME) on the issue of injury to applicant’s orthopedic body parts, defendant sought and obtained an order on January 29, 2026, which effectively blocked applicant from proceeding with the evaluation. It is a maxim of jurisprudence that “[n]o one can take advantage of their own wrong.” (Civ. Code, § 3517.) Defendant’s argument that applicant did not present evidence as to their orthopedic body parts is not well taken in that it was defendant who blocked applicant from proceeding to the QME. It is clear that evidence was not submitted with respect to the claimed orthopedic injuries,
The WCJ found applicant did not meet burden to prove injury to psyche/depression; the Appeals Board agreed and denied further development of the record on psyche injury.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek review of the Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 30, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant claims to have sustained a cumulative injury from April 4, 2022 through October 8, 2024 while working as a Clerk Typist II for defendant to her neck, shoulders, knees, jaw, stomach, psyche/depression, and headaches/migraines; that applicant did not meet her burden to prove that she sustained an injury to her psyche/depression; and that further development of the record is necessary to address whether applicant sustained injury to her neck, shoulders, knees, headaches/migraines, jaw, and stomach. Applicant in her Petition for Reconsideration contends that the WCJ should have allowed further development of the record regarding injury to applicant’s psyche. Defendant in the Petition for Removal contends that the WCJ should not have allowed further development of the record regarding injury to applicant’s other body parts.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant did not meet burden to prove injury to psyche/depression.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led to denial of applicant's petition for reconsideration on psyche injury.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek review of the Findings and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 30, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant claims to have sustained a cumulative injury from April 4, 2022 through October 8, 2024 while working as a Clerk Typist II for defendant to her neck, shoulders, knees, jaw, stomach, psyche/depression, and headaches/migraines; that applicant did not meet her burden to prove that she sustained an injury to her psyche/depression; and that further development of the record is necessary to address whether applicant sustained injury to her neck, shoulders, knees, headaches/migraines, jaw, and stomach. Applicant in her Petition for Reconsideration contends that the WCJ should have allowed further development of the record regarding injury to applicant’s psyche. Defendant in the Petition for Removal contends that the WCJ should not have allowed further development of the record regarding injury to applicant’s other body parts.
Defendant blocked applicant from proceeding with orthopedic QME evaluation, preventing evidence submission on orthopedic injuries.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to denial of defendant's petition for removal and allowed further development on orthopedic injuries.
From the decision · page 5461, 465, emphasis added.) Here, the parties and the WCJ appear to be laboring under a misconception as to what constitutes a denial of injury to a body part in contrast to what constitutes injury arising out of and in the course of employment. It is true that we cannot find injury AOE/COE without identifying a body part. But it is also true that a finding of no injury to an individual body part does not mean that there is no cumulative injury whatsoever. Here, defendant pushed for a trial on the issue of AOE/COE to applicant’s psyche. When applicant attempted to proceed with an orthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME) on the issue of injury to applicant’s orthopedic body parts, defendant sought and obtained an order on January 29, 2026, which effectively blocked applicant from proceeding with the evaluation. It is a maxim of jurisprudence that “[n]o one can take advantage of their own wrong.” (Civ. Code, § 3517.) Defendant’s argument that applicant did not present evidence as to their orthopedic body parts is not well taken in that it was defendant who blocked applicant from proceeding to the QME. It is clear that evidence was not submitted with respect to the claimed orthopedic injuries,
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
An employee bears the burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence.
Applied to the burden of proof for injury compensability.
Lab. Code, § 3208.3(b)(1)-(2)
To establish compensability of psychiatric injury, employee must show actual events of employment were predominant cause of injury.
Applied to compensability of psychiatric injury.
From the decision · page 48, § 10955(a).) Here, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice, or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. III. We emphasize the following: An employee bears the burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a); 3202.5.) With respect to psychiatric injuries, section 3208.3(b) provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) In order to establish that a psychiatric injury is compensable, an employee shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the psychiatric injury.
Civ. Code, § 3517
No one can take advantage of their own wrong.
Applied to defendant blocking applicant from QME evaluation, affecting evidence submission.
From the decision · page 5461, 465, emphasis added.) Here, the parties and the WCJ appear to be laboring under a misconception as to what constitutes a denial of injury to a body part in contrast to what constitutes injury arising out of and in the course of employment. It is true that we cannot find injury AOE/COE without identifying a body part. But it is also true that a finding of no injury to an individual body part does not mean that there is no cumulative injury whatsoever. Here, defendant pushed for a trial on the issue of AOE/COE to applicant’s psyche. When applicant attempted to proceed with an orthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME) on the issue of injury to applicant’s orthopedic body parts, defendant sought and obtained an order on January 29, 2026, which effectively blocked applicant from proceeding with the evaluation. It is a maxim of jurisprudence that “[n]o one can take advantage of their own wrong.” (Civ. Code, § 3517.) Defendant’s argument that applicant did not present evidence as to their orthopedic body parts is not well taken in that it was defendant who blocked applicant from proceeding to the QME. It is clear that evidence was not submitted with respect to the claimed orthopedic injuries,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant blocked applicant from proceeding with orthopedic QME evaluation, preventing evidence submission on orthopedic injuries.
From the decision · page 5461, 465, emphasis added.) Here, the parties and the WCJ appear to be laboring under a misconception as to what constitutes a denial of injury to a body part in contrast to what constitutes injury arising out of and in the course of employment. It is true that we cannot find injury AOE/COE without identifying a body part. But it is also true that a finding of no injury to an individual body part does not mean that there is no cumulative injury whatsoever. Here, defendant pushed for a trial on the issue of AOE/COE to applicant’s psyche. When applicant attempted to proceed with an orthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME) on the issue of injury to applicant’s orthopedic body parts, defendant sought and obtained an order on January 29, 2026, which effectively blocked applicant from proceeding with the evaluation. It is a maxim of jurisprudence that “[n]o one can take advantage of their own wrong.” (Civ. Code, § 3517.) Defendant’s argument that applicant did not present evidence as to their orthopedic body parts is not well taken in that it was defendant who blocked applicant from proceeding to the QME. It is clear that evidence was not submitted with respect to the claimed orthopedic injuries,
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.