What the panel ordered
March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for reconsideration granted; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior FA&O and returning matter to 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 July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Due process and fair hearing principles support admitting the report to ensure full development of the evidentiary record and substantial evidence support.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The July 24, 2020 medical report of Dr. Khalid Ahmed was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supports admission of the report under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) and ensures due process and full development of the evidentiary record.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the issue of when discovery closes, section 5502(d)(3) provides: "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference." Here, it is indisputable that the July 24, 2020 report of Dr. Ahmed was not available at the time of the July 6, 2020 MSC as applicant had not yet attended the July 24, 2020 appointment with Dr. Ahmed. As such, the report should be admitted on this basis. Further, both statutory law and case law favor the admissibility of medical reports, provided the reports are obtained in accordance with the Labor Code. (See Lab. Code, § 4064(d), 5703(a), 5708; e.g.,
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.
Provided a medical report dated July 24, 2020, relevant to injury AOE/COE and medical treatment issues; report was initially excluded but later ordered admitted.
The report was initially found inadmissible but later admitted as it was not available at the MSC and admission was required for due process and full development of the record.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 12, 2021 Joint Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) wherein a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, bilateral knees, and bilateral shoulders. The WCJ also found the July 24, 2020 report of treater, Dr. Khalid Ahmed, to be inadmissible. Applicant alleges that the report should have been admitted under Labor Code section2 5502(d)(3) as it was unavailable at the time of the July 6, 2020 mandatory settlement conference (MSC).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5502(d)(3)
Discovery closes on the date of the mandatory settlement conference; evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter is inadmissible unless it was not available or could not have been discovered by due diligence prior to the MSC (Lab. Code, § 5502(d)(3))
The July 24, 2020 medical report was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC and thus should be admitted under this standard.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the issue of when discovery closes, section 5502(d)(3) provides: "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference." Here, it is indisputable that the July 24, 2020 report of Dr. Ahmed was not available at the time of the July 6, 2020 MSC as applicant had not yet attended the July 24, 2020 appointment with Dr. Ahmed. As such, the report should be admitted on this basis. Further, both statutory law and case law favor the admissibility of medical reports, provided the reports are obtained in accordance with the Labor Code. (See Lab. Code, § 4064(d), 5703(a), 5708; e.g.,
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
July 24, 2020 medical report of Dr. Khalid Ahmed was not available at the July 6, 2020 MSC
From the decision · page 3Turning to the issue of when discovery closes, section 5502(d)(3) provides: "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference." Here, it is indisputable that the July 24, 2020 report of Dr. Ahmed was not available at the time of the July 6, 2020 MSC as applicant had not yet attended the July 24, 2020 appointment with Dr. Ahmed. As such, the report should be admitted on this basis. Further, both statutory law and case law favor the admissibility of medical reports, provided the reports are obtained in accordance with the Labor Code. (See Lab. Code, § 4064(d), 5703(a), 5708; e.g.,
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.