What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the August 17, 2021 Findings and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the August 17, 2021 Finding of Fact and Order (F&O) by the WCJ, which found no injury arising out of employment; the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.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 WCJ's original decision found no injury arising out of employment, but the WCAB found the record insufficient due to the medical report not being properly admitted, warranting reconsideration and remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 17, 2021 Finding of Fact and Order (F&O), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a janitor on May 1, 2019, and December 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019, did not sustain a specific injury or a cumulative trauma injury arising out of or in the course of his employment (AOE/COE) by defendant C&R Restaurant Group dba Taco Bell.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The medical report of PQME Dr. Karl Robinson was not properly admitted into evidence, resulting in an insufficient record to evaluate the WCJ's decision.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural defect led the WCAB to grant reconsideration and remand the matter for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 3The issue that we face on reconsideration is that there is an insufficient record to evaluate the WCJ's Order. Exhibit CC, the August 20, 2020 report of the PQME, is not listed on the MOH, and was not properly identified or admitted into evidence. Accordingly, we grant the Petition, rescind the Order, and return the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision. When the WCJ issues a new decision any aggrieved person can timely seek reconsideration.
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 regarding applicant's orthopedic condition, which was stipulated to be admitted but was not properly admitted into evidence, leading to reconsideration.
From the decision · page 2On August 10, 2021, by way of a letter, the parties stipulated to admitting the medical report of PQME Dr. Karl Robinson into evidence as joint Exhibit CC. The WCJ did not issue an order based on this stipulation and made no changes to the MOH.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5402
Labor Code section 5402 requires defendants to reject liability within 90 days.
Applicant contended defendants failed to reject liability within 90 days, which was a basis for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that defendants failed to reject liability within 90 days, as required by Labor Code section 5402; that the reporting and testimony of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Dr. Robinson, as well as the testimony of the defense witnesses and applicant, support a finding that applicant endured difficult and repetitive work that could contribute to an orthopedic injury; and that the applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The medical report of PQME Dr. Karl Robinson was stipulated to be admitted but was not properly admitted into evidence, resulting in an insufficient record to evaluate the WCJ's decision.
From the decision · page 2On August 10, 2021, by way of a letter, the parties stipulated to admitting the medical report of PQME Dr. Karl Robinson into evidence as joint Exhibit CC. The WCJ did not issue an order based on this stipulation and made no changes to the MOH.
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.