SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ13523690 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ13523690 · June 6, 2025

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 3
Authorities named: 2
District office: Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.

Lien claimant Medland Medical petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Joint Findings and Award denying injury and reimbursement claims; the WCJ recommended denial of the petition; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.

Read the official 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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further review and development of the record on the merits of the petition.

From the decision · page 2Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on April 9, 2025, and the 60-day period for acting on the petition ends on June 9, 2025.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration within the statutory timeframe, allowing further review.

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."

There was no evidence of a COVID-19 outbreak at the applicant's workplace or coworker infections during the relevant period.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This lack of evidence prevented determination of the COVID-19 presumption under Labor Code section 3212.88.

From the decision · page 5Here, defendant does not dispute that applicant tested positive for COVID-19 on July 23, 2020; and that applicant last reported for work on July 20, 2020. However, the record contains no evidence of whether any additional coworkers tested positive for COVID-19 in the same period, or any evidence of

The record was not fully developed on the issue of COVID-19 presumption, raising due process concerns.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further development of the evidentiary record and legal issues.

From the decision · page 682 Cal.App.4th at pp. 157-158.) A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gangwish) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584]; Rucker at pp. 157-158, citing Kaiser Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58 [17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Katzin) (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) Here, the issue of whether the presumption applies raises a question of due process, as neither party has had the opportunity to properly develop the evidentiary record on the actual issue(s) presented. (Katzin, supra, 5 Cal.App.4th at pp. 711-712; Gangwish, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 1284.)