What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; Findings of November 28, 2022 amended; issue of new and further disability deferred with jurisdiction reserved
Petitions for reconsideration granted; issue of new and further disability deferred for further record development
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 record lacked substantial medical evidence explaining the causal connection between the 2013 injury and the low back condition, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issue of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury. The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) medical evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Since, in accordance with that mandate, "it is well established that the WCJ or the Board may not leave undeveloped matters" within its acquired specialized knowledge (Id. at p. 404), pursuant to Labor Code section 5906, we will defer the issues of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury so the record may be clarified, by way of substantial medical evidence, regarding whether the March 21, 2013 injury caused the need for medical treatment or disability with regard to the low back.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The medical evidence did not adequately explain how the March 21, 2013 cervical spine injury caused new and further disability to the low back.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of substantial medical evidence led the panel to grant reconsideration and defer the issue for further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issue of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury. The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) medical evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Since, in accordance with that mandate, "it is well established that the WCJ or the Board may not leave undeveloped matters" within its acquired specialized knowledge (Id. at p. 404), pursuant to Labor Code section 5906, we will defer the issues of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury so the record may be clarified, by way of substantial medical evidence, regarding whether the March 21, 2013 injury caused the need for medical treatment or disability with regard to the low back.
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. Bathgate opined that the applicant had low back pain related to work at both Northwest Lineman College and Lassen Municipal Utility District, recommending treatment for the low back based on work at Lassen Municipal Utility District.
Dr. Bathgate's reports indicated contribution to low back condition from work at both employers but lacked sufficient explanation linking the 2013 injury to the low back disability.
From the decision · page 1Applicant was evaluated by agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Beth Bathgate, M.D. both with regard to the reopening proceedings as well as the claim for a later injury with a different employer, Northwest Lineman College. In an October 19, 2017 report, Dr. Bathgate wrote:
From the decision · page 4f. Dr. Daniel Shalom is the Agreed Medical Evaluator.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 [Appeals Bd. en banc]; E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]
Substantial evidence must support WCAB decisions, including medical opinions based on reasonable medical probability with explained reasoning.
The panel found the medical evidence insufficient to support the finding of new and further disability to the low back from the 2013 injury, requiring further record development.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Lack of substantial medical evidence explaining causal connection between 2013 injury and low back condition
From the decision · page 3Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration and defer the issue of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury. The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) medical evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Since, in accordance with that mandate, "it is well established that the WCJ or the Board may not leave undeveloped matters" within its acquired specialized knowledge (Id. at p. 404), pursuant to Labor Code section 5906, we will defer the issues of new and further disability with regard to the March 21, 2013 injury so the record may be clarified, by way of substantial medical evidence, regarding whether the March 21, 2013 injury caused the need for medical treatment or disability with regard to the low back.
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.