What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by uninsured employer and others from order approving compromise and release agreement
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 petition for reconsideration was skeletal, failed to substantiate claims of fraud and bias, and did not fairly state all material evidence, thus subject to dismissal or denial.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. We also note the Petition for Reconsideration is skeletal and makes allegations of fraud and bias against the WCJ which are wholly unsubstantiated rendering it subject to dismissal or denial.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Reconsideration was skeletal and made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and bias against the WCJ.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure to substantiate claims rendered the petition subject to dismissal or denial.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons discussed below, we will deny reconsideration. We also note the Petition for Reconsideration is skeletal and makes allegations of fraud and bias against the WCJ which are wholly unsubstantiated rendering it subject to dismissal or denial.
WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight due to opportunity to observe witness demeanor and no substantial evidence to reject them.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported denial of the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5902
The petition for reconsideration shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board. The petition shall be verified upon oath and contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof.
The petition for reconsideration filed was skeletal and failed to substantiate claims, thus subject to dismissal or denial.
From the decision · page 1The petition for reconsideration shall set forth specifically and in full detail the grounds upon which the petitioner considers the final order, decision or award made and filed by the appeals board or a workers' compensation judge to be unjust or unlawful, and every issue to be considered by the appeals board. The petition shall be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record and shall contain a general statement of any evidence or other matters upon which the applicant relies in support thereof. (Lab. Code, § 5902, emphasis added.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10842, now 10945
Every petition for reconsideration shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue and each contention shall be separately stated and clearly set forth.
The petition for reconsideration filed was skeletal and failed to substantiate claims, thus subject to dismissal or denial.
From the decision · page 1Moreover, the Appeals Board Rules provide in relevant part: (1) that "[e]very petition for reconsideration... shall fairly state all the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue [and] [e]ach contention contained in a petition for reconsideration... shall be separately stated and
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10846, now 10972
A petition for reconsideration may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved.
The petition for reconsideration filed was skeletal and failed to substantiate claims, thus subject to dismissal or denial.
From the decision · page 2clearly set forth" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10842, now § 10945 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020) and (2) that "a petition for reconsideration... may be denied or dismissed if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved" (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10846, now § 10972 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determinations given great weight due to opportunity to observe witness demeanor
From the decision · page 2Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
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.