ADJ10642765 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Reconsideration granted; February 9, 2026 Findings and Orders rescinded; issue of new and further disability deferred for further evidentiary development.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 9, 2026 Findings and Orders denying new and further disability and additional QME panels; the WCJ recommended denial; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred the issue of new and further disability for further development of the record.

Read the official decision →

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.

Reopening / new and further disabilityDeferredleft knee · lower extremities · knee/patella · back · psychiatric injury · circulatory system

The Appeals Board found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.

From the decision · page 9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's trial testimony of increased symptoms and additional body parts affected

From the decision · page 6Applicant's alleged symptoms with respect to her left knee and body parts claimed as a compensable consequence of the original injury are reflected in both the trial testimony and in the medical record. Applicant's trial testimony indicates that following the finalization of her Award in 2021, she experienced an increase in symptoms, including clicking in the left knee and the knee giving way unexpectedly. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated December 16,

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Medical records documenting musculoskeletal complaints and psychiatric symptoms

From the decision · page 7The corresponding records of applicant's PTP Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., reflect applicant's musculoskeletal complaints across multiple body parts, including lumbar, thoracic and cervical spine pain with corresponding reduction in range in motion and compromise in activities of daily living. (Ex. 4, Report of Koruon Daldalyan, dated December 28, 2023, at pp. 2-3, 5.) Dr. Daldalyan diagnosed "musculoskeletal injuries involving the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral hips, [and] bilateral knees," as well as "internal derangement of the left knee, status post surgical repair with reinjury," and depressive and anxiety disorders. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) Dr. Daldalyan opined that "some of these diagnoses are industrial in origin and are either initiated or aggravated by the patient's employment and are, therefore, industrial in origin." (Id. at p. 9.)

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Lack of comprehensive medical-legal reporting on compensable consequence injuries

From the decision · page 8The WCJ's Report observes that despite amending her claim in 2023, applicant has not obtained comprehensive medical-legal reporting addressing whether she has sustained new and further disability to any alleged body parts beyond the left knee. (Report, at p. 5.) Although applicant now requests the issuance of additional panels of QMEs to address contested body parts, the WCJ states that applicant's lack of diligence in obtaining reporting responsive to the petition for new and further disability militates against such action. We acknowledge the WCJ's analysis in this regard and agree that the failure to undertake timely discovery is indeed relevant to any evaluation of good cause for development of the record.

ADJ10642765 · May 18, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page