What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; further proceedings to be determined after study.
Petition for Reconsideration granted to allow further study of factual and legal issues due to insufficient findings of fact by WCJ.
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 findings were found insufficient under Labor Code section 5903 because the treating physician's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence, requiring reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Based upon our initial review, it appears that the evidence in this case does not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903, in that the opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel, M.D., appears to constitute substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel constitutes substantial medical evidence.