What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant after denial of injury claim; WCJ report reviewed and adopted by panel
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 petition was denied because the new evidence was not found credible and did not overcome the WCJ's credibility determinations.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found the testimony of defense witnesses more credible and persuasive than the applicant's testimony regarding the injury event.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credibility finding led to the denial of the injury claim and the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5In weighing the credibility of the applicant against that of the defendant's witnesses, the undersigned found that the testimony of the defense witnesses was more credible and persuasive that the testimony of the applicant as to the events surrounding the claimed injury. On August 16, 2019, the undersigned found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his right knee and ordered that he take nothing on his claim.
The new evidence presented in the petition for reconsideration was not found credible and contradicted prior testimony.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of credible new evidence supported denial of the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5Following the second trial, the undersigned found that Applicant had failed to show why the alleged new evidence of the testimony of Ralph Burciaga could not have been produced prior to the matter going to trial and that even if the testimony could not have been previously produced, it was not found to be credible, as it contradicted the prior testimony provided by the applicant. The undersigned ordered the applicant take nothing on his claim for industrial injury.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
8 CCR 10842(c)
Attaching documents already part of the record violates WCAB Rule 10842(c)
Applicant's attorney was reminded not to attach duplicate documents.
From the decision · page 1Finally, we remind applicant's attorney William Delaney that attaching documents that are already part of the record violates WCAB Rule 10842(c) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10842(c), now § 10945(c)(1)-(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).)
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319
WCJ's credibility determinations are given great weight and should be rejected only on the basis of contrary evidence of considerable substantiality
The panel adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no contrary evidence of considerable substantiality.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
8 CCR 10856 and 10859
Petition for reconsideration must be timely and based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been produced at trial with reasonable diligence
The petition was found untimely or the new evidence was not credible to warrant reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5On September, 17, 2019, the undersigned issued an Order Rescinding Findings of Fact, Orders, and Opinion on Decision Pursuant to 8 CCR§ 10856 and 10859. The matter was set for further testimony on October 13, 2020.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determinations given great weight; defense witnesses found more credible than applicant
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
Testimony of Augustine Clark and Yvonne Angulo supported defense version of events
Applicant's testimony about work hours contradicted by time cards and alarm activity report
From the decision · page 6Applicant's testimony that he had sustained his injury while working until 2 a.m. was also not found to be credible in light of the contradictory documentation contained in the time cards and the alarm Customer Activity Report. (Exhibits E and G.)
Applicant's testimony about discovery of witness was less than credible due to multiple coincidences
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.