What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is granted; final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and entire record.p. 12
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, Awards issued by the WCJ on April 23, 2026; the WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal recommending denial; the Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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 Appeals Board found that the record may not be complete regarding causation of the psychiatric injury and that reconsideration is necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to issue a just and reasoned decision.
From the decision · page 9(Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding causation of the psychiatric injury. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must