What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders of November 5, 2024, and issued a new decision finding no industrial injury to the teeth; all other issues were deferred.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders of November 5, 2024, which found industrial injury to multiple body parts including teeth; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision.
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 lien claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant sustained dental injury; Dr. Schames's opinion lacked substantial evidence and adequate explanation linking dental injury to industrial exposure.
From the decision · page 5We thus find that lien claimant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant sustained dental injury. Since this is the only body part relevant to lien claimant's medical treatment lien, we need not consider whether applicant sustained injury to any other body part. We will grant reconsideration, issue a finding that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the teeth, and defer all other issues. If any other body part is relevant to any future issue in this case, the issue can be raised by a relevant party at the trial level.