What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirms the Joint Findings and Order of January 14, 2020, denying the petition for reconsideration and upholding the WCJ's finding that additional medical evidence is necessary to determine injury AOE/COE.
Petition for reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on January 14, 2020, challenging the finding that applicant did not meet burden of proof of injury AOE/COE in case ADJ12387385; the WCJ found further medical development necessary; the WCAB applies removal standard and denies reconsideration.
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 WCJ found insufficient medical evidence to determine injury AOE/COE and ordered further medical development; the WCAB affirmed this finding, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration as removal was not justified and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
From the decision · page 4Turning to defendant's Petition, defendant asks that we find that, because of the lack of medical evidence, applicant did not meet his burden of proof that he sustained injury AOE/COE. The WCJ determined that that the medical record needs to be developed by use of a PQME, AME or "regular physician" appointed by the WCJ, in order to prove or disprove a contested injury. (Report, p. 3.) The WCJ's finding that additional medical evidence is necessary to develop the record is not a threshold issue. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory finding/order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)