What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the November 29, 2023 Findings of Fact and Orders, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings with reassignment to a new WCJ.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders issued by the WCJ on November 29, 2023, which found no injury arising out of employment and ordered applicant to take nothing; the WCJ's prior take nothing order was rescinded by the Appeals Board's April 18, 2023 decision and the matter was returned to the WCJ to create a full and complete record; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the November 29, 2023 F&O, and returned the case to the trial level for reassignment to a new WCJ due to inability to prepare a proper record.
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 November 29, 2023 F&O found no injury AOE/COE, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficient and the WCJ's credibility determination flawed, leading to rescission and reassignment for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administration law judge (WCJ) on November 29, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) to his neck, back, digestive tract, psyche, internal (in the form of asthma), sleep, sexual dysfunction, shoulders, chest and headaches, and that all other issues were deemed moot. The WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing from his claims. The WCJ also entered into evidence applicant's Exhibits 5 through 9 and 41, defendant's Exhibit BB, and the Court's Exhibits's ZZ, ZZ-2 and ZZ-2. The WCJ struck applicant's Exhibit 42 (Transcript Testimony of the applicant, Volumes I and II dated February 3, 2012 and April 16, 2012).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was found not credible due to failure to provide accurate history and comply with discovery orders, undermining the medical evidence reliability.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of credibility led the WCJ to find the medical evidence not substantial, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficient and reassigned the case for further development.
From the decision · page 13Because applicant is not credible, his evidence is not substantial evidence. The examining and treating doctors reporting in this case were not provided an accurate history of applicant's activities. The medical records are not substantial evidence.
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.
Prepared a Return to Work and Disability Form restricting applicant from testifying at trial due to medical reasons.
From the decision · page 3At the December 12, 2016 trial date in this case, applicant objected to defendant's December 13, 2016 Notice to Appear, alleging that he was medically restricted from testifying pursuant to the November 17, 2016 "Return to Work and Disability Form" prepared by PTP Dr. Curtis. (Minutes of Hearing (Further), December 12, 2016 ("December MOH"), p. 4:6-24; Objection to Defendant's Notice to Appear 11/29/16 and Various Attachments, December 12, 2016 ("Objection"), p. 3.) Defendant responded by stating that applicant was playing games and made an oral motion to dismiss applicant's claim based on defendant's inability to cross-examine applicant, due process and its right to a speedy trial. (December MOH, pp. 4:20-24, 7:9-15.)...
Diagnosed applicant with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder; evaluated applicant's ability to testify in deposition or court.
From the decision · page 4After further evaluation, QME Marcia G. Lamm, Ph.D., gave the following opinion:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5300, 5301, 5708 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10346(a) regarding reassignment of WCJ and procedural due process.
Applied to justify reassignment of the case to a new WCJ for further proceedings due to inability to prepare a proper record.
From the decision · page 2We have reviewed the record in this case, the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the Answer, and the contents of the Report. Based on our review of the record in this case, we grant reconsideration and as our decision after reconsideration, we rescind the F&O and return this case to the trial level for further proceedings. Given the acrimony apparent on the surface of the pleadings in this matter, which we believe gives rise to the inability of the WCJ to prepare a proper record for review on reconsideration despite the attempt to guide the process in the 2023 Decision, we conclude that the parties would be better served by a re-assignment to a new WCJ. (Lab. Code, § 5300, 5301, 5708.) We therefore return the matter to the presiding WCJ for re-assignment as to another WCJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10346(a).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credibility was found lacking due to failure to provide accurate history and comply with discovery orders, leading to adverse evidentiary inferences.
From the decision · page 13Because applicant is not credible, his evidence is not substantial evidence. The examining and treating doctors reporting in this case were not provided an accurate history of applicant's activities. The medical records are not substantial evidence.
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.