What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of May 2, 2000, rescinded; case returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with the en banc opinion.
Petition for reconsideration granted by the Board en banc, rescinding the WCJ's Findings and Award and returning the matter to the trial level 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.
The Board held that the treating physician presumption under section 4062.9 may be raised for the first time at trial but not for the first time on reconsideration, and that it must be raised as a separate issue to avoid waiver.
From the decision · page 110 On July 7, 2000, the Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration of the Findings
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The treating physician presumption under Labor Code section 4062.9 was not raised at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC).
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ found the issue waived due to failure to raise it at the MSC, leading to reconsideration by the Board.
From the decision · page 44 stated in his Opinion on Decision, "Since Labor Code § 4062.9 was not raised on the MSC
The presumption may be raised for the first time at trial but not for the first time on reconsideration.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This legal principle led the Board to rescind the WCJ's decision and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 713 Therefore, although we reiterate that all issues should be raised at the time of the MSC, a
The presumption must be raised as a separate issue to avoid waiver and ensure proper notice to the trier of fact.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This requirement supports judicial economy and proper case management, influencing the Board's ruling.
From the decision · page 717 While the treating physician's presumption under section 4062.9 may be raised for the first
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.
Dr. Hunt opined applicant's condition was permanent and stationary as of February 24, 1999, with prophylactic work restrictions and need for further medical treatment; apportioned 50% of right shoulder disability to prior injury.
His opinion was central to the treating physician presumption issue raised at trial and reconsideration.
From the decision · page 29 Applicant's primary treating physician for these industrial injuries was Dr. Robert Hunt. In
Dr. Wertheimer concluded applicant was permanent and stationary, prescribed light analgesics and occasional steroid injections, and found physical therapy ineffective; his permanent disability rating was less restrictive than Dr. Hunt's.
His opinion was weighed against Dr. Hunt's in the dispute over permanent disability and medical treatment.
From the decision · page 217 with the opinion of Dr. Steven Wertheimer, defendant's qualified medical examiner (QME), as to
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4062.9
Labor Code section 4062.9 provides a rebuttable presumption of correctness to the findings of the treating physician when a comprehensive medical evaluation is obtained under sections 4061 or 4062.
The Board applied this presumption to determine the timing and waiver of raising the presumption in proceedings.
From the decision · page 112 In the relevant portion of his decision, the WCJ stated that because Labor Code section 4062.91
Labor Code section 5502(d)(3)
Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) requires parties to file a pretrial conference statement noting specific issues in dispute, including permanent disability ratings and witnesses, to avoid waiver of issues not raised at the mandatory settlement conference.
The Board discussed the waiver implications of failing to raise issues at the MSC under this section.
From the decision · page 55 for failure to raise the issue of section 4062.9 at the MSC, was made pursuant to section
Evidence Code section 606
Evidence Code section 606 imposes the burden of proof on the party against whom a presumption operates to prove the nonexistence of the presumed fact.
The Board explained the legal effect of the presumption under section 4062.9 as affecting the burden of proof.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant testified she was still treating with Dr. Hunt at trial, supporting the treating physician presumption.
From the decision · page 316 Following the proceeding of December 16, 1999, at which applicant testified, among other
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.