What the panel ordered
Findings of Fact and Orders rescinded and cases returned to trial level for further proceedings
Remand after annulment by the Court of Appeal for further development of the record
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold December 10, 2024.
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 record lacked substantial evidence to support the denial of industrial causation due to missing contemporaneous witness statements not provided to medical evaluators, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 1The following Decision After Remittitur is issued pursuant to the Order issued on February 20, 2026 by the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 8 (Second District), in which the Court found good cause to grant the request of the Appeals Board to annul the Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration issued on December 10, 2024 (Decision), and remand the matter to the Appeals Board for further proceedings. This is our decision after remittitur and remand.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Prior witness statements closer in time to the stroke were not provided to medical evaluators and were missing from the record.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These statements were necessary for medical evaluators to form substantial evidence opinions on industrial causation.
WCJ excluded prior inconsistent statements despite allowing their use for impeachment, undermining credibility assessment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Exclusion of these statements deprived the record of important evidence affecting causation findings.
From the decision · page 3The WCJ then excluded these prior inconsistent statements from evidence even though the WCJ had already permitted them to be used for the purpose of impeachment. (Evid. Code, § 780(h), 352.)
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.
Deferred final opinion pending review of coworker's testimony or statement, if available; indicated stroke was non-industrial absent evidence of work stress or delayed treatment.
Opinion dependent on unavailable evidence, thus not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 2Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) Here, the reporting doctors opined that if the trier of fact did not accept that the employer unreasonably delayed the provision of medical treatment or if applicant did not experience mental or physical work stress before the stroke, then the stroke was non-industrial. (December 13, 2018 deposition of qualified medical evaluator internist Paul J. Grodan, M.D. at pp. 18-19; April 1, 2021 report of qualified medical evaluator neurologist Israel Gorinstein, M.D. at pp. 3-4.)
Noted missing detailed and documented information regarding the events of the day; deferred to Dr. Grodan on employment role in hypertension development or aggravation.
Opinion dependent on unavailable evidence, thus not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 2Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) Here, the reporting doctors opined that if the trier of fact did not accept that the employer unreasonably delayed the provision of medical treatment or if applicant did not experience mental or physical work stress before the stroke, then the stroke was non-industrial. (December 13, 2018 deposition of qualified medical evaluator internist Paul J. Grodan, M.D. at pp. 18-19; April 1, 2021 report of qualified medical evaluator neurologist Israel Gorinstein, M.D. at pp. 3-4.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3202
Any reasonable doubt as to whether the act is contemplated by the employment should be resolved in favor of the employee.
Applied to weigh evidence of industrial causation in favor of applicant.
From the decision · page 2failed to properly weigh the available evidence pursuant to the requirement of Labor Code1 section 3202 that "`[a]ny reasonable doubt as to the whether the act is contemplated by the employment...should be resolved in favor of the employee.'" (Petition for Writ of Review (Writ), p. 20, citing Pacific Indem. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 509, 514, and II generally.) We concur and note that although it is the employee's burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they sustained a compensable injury (Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5, 5705), "[t]he concept of what constitutes a work-related injury is broad." (Hughes Aircraft v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Billik) (2017) 2017 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 19 (writ den.) citing South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 849].) Whether an employee's injury arose out of and in the course of their employment "`is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case.'" (Melendez v. Ameron International Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 632 [80
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Exclusion of prior inconsistent statements of defense witnesses despite their use for impeachment
From the decision · page 3The WCJ then excluded these prior inconsistent statements from evidence even though the WCJ had already permitted them to be used for the purpose of impeachment. (Evid. Code, § 780(h), 352.)
Missing 2018 witness statements of defense witnesses and another employee not provided to medical evaluators
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.