What the panel ordered
February 4, 2025 Findings and Order rescinded and substituted with a new Findings, Award, and Order; matter remanded to trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petition for reconsideration granted to rescind the February 4, 2025 Findings and Order and substitute with a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) reflecting all WCJ findings, awards, and orders, and remanding 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.
Apportionment issue deferred pending further development of the record.
From the decision · page 10ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d), apportionment, right to a supplemental job displacement voucher, attorney's fees, penalties, the EDD lien, and future medical for psyche are deferred, pending further development of the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an AME re-evaluation be scheduled with Dr. Albert Simpkins, Jr., and an updated report be requested from PQME, Dr. James Sherman. The issue of a medical-legal re-evaluation for applicant's injury to psyche is deferred.
Future medical for psyche deferred pending further development of the record.
From the decision · page 10ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d), apportionment, right to a supplemental job displacement voucher, attorney's fees, penalties, the EDD lien, and future medical for psyche are deferred, pending further development of the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an AME re-evaluation be scheduled with Dr. Albert Simpkins, Jr., and an updated report be requested from PQME, Dr. James Sherman. The issue of a medical-legal re-evaluation for applicant's injury to psyche is deferred.
The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to psyche and applicant does not challenge this finding; it is a threshold issue and final.
Permanent disability issue deferred pending further development of the record.
From the decision · page 10ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d), apportionment, right to a supplemental job displacement voucher, attorney's fees, penalties, the EDD lien, and future medical for psyche are deferred, pending further development of the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an AME re-evaluation be scheduled with Dr. Albert Simpkins, Jr., and an updated report be requested from PQME, Dr. James Sherman. The issue of a medical-legal re-evaluation for applicant's injury to psyche is deferred.
Right to supplemental job displacement voucher deferred pending further development of the record.
From the decision · page 10ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d), apportionment, right to a supplemental job displacement voucher, attorney's fees, penalties, the EDD lien, and future medical for psyche are deferred, pending further development of the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an AME re-evaluation be scheduled with Dr. Albert Simpkins, Jr., and an updated report be requested from PQME, Dr. James Sherman. The issue of a medical-legal re-evaluation for applicant's injury to psyche is deferred.
Temporary disability issue deferred pending further development of the record.
From the decision · page 10ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d), apportionment, right to a supplemental job displacement voucher, attorney's fees, penalties, the EDD lien, and future medical for psyche are deferred, pending further development of the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an AME re-evaluation be scheduled with Dr. Albert Simpkins, Jr., and an updated report be requested from PQME, Dr. James Sherman. The issue of a medical-legal re-evaluation for applicant's injury to psyche is deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These are threshold issues that are final and not challenged by applicant, supporting granting reconsideration to substitute FA&O reflecting these findings.
Issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, apportionment, supplemental job displacement voucher, and EDD lien are interlocutory and deferred pending further record development.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports deferral of these issues and denial of removal, as no significant prejudice or irreparable harm shown.
From the decision · page 7Further, we agree with the WCJ that the issues of temporary disability, permanent disability, apportionment, right to a supplemental job displacement voucher, and EDD lien are not yet ripe for reconsideration and should be deferred, pending further development of the record. Given that the order deferring these issues was indicated in the OOD, but not the F&O, we will rescind the F&O and substitute it with a new Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) which includes the WCJ's order of deferral of these issues.
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.
Ordered reevaluation by orthopedic AME Dr. Simpkins for further development of the record.
Ordered reevaluation by psyche PQME Dr. Glaser; replacement panel requested due to Dr. Glaser's passing.
From the decision · page 7IV. Applicant also requests an order for a replacement psychiatry panel given Dr. Glaser's passing and the WCJ's order for further development of the record, including "a PQME
Ordered updated report from internal medicine PQME Dr. Sherman for further development of the record.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board per Labor Code section 5909.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition filed April 8, 2025, within 60 days of transmission on April 8, 2025.
From the decision · page 4Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected under the Events tab in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
Labor Code sections 5900, 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658; Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 783.
A petition for reconsideration is taken only from a final order, decision, or award that determines a substantive right or liability or a threshold issue fundamental to a claim for benefits.
The WCJ's findings on injury AOE/COE to psyche and earning capacity are final threshold issues; interlocutory issues are deferred and subject to removal standard.
From the decision · page 5II. We also find it relevant here to discuss the distinction between a petition for reconsideration and a petition for removal. A petition for reconsideration is taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order is defined as one that determines "any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" or a "threshold" issue fundamental to a claim for benefits. (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, injury AOE/COE, jurisdiction, the existence of an employment relationship, and statute of limitations. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
stipulation to injury AOE/COE to cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, bilateral lower extremities, and hernia
From the decision · page 7III. Turning now to applicant's contentions regarding the section 5402(b) presumption and applicant's occupational group, applicant argues that section 5402(b) applies to all claimed body parts. (Petition, pp. 1, 3, 14.) Section 5402(b) states that, "If liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed under Section 5401, the injury shall be presumed compensable under this division." (Lab. Code, § 5402(b).) Notwithstanding applicant's failure to raise this issue at trial, the parties have already stipulated to injury AOE/COE to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, bilateral lower extremities, and hernia. (Pretrial Conference Statement, February 29, 2024; Minutes of Hearing, August 7, 2024.) With respect to psyche, which appears to be the only disputed body part, the WCJ found injury AOE/COE in the February 4, 2025 F&O.
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.