What the panel ordered
The WCAB rescinded the April 10, 2023 Amended Findings and Award and returned the matter to the WCJ to consider the Compromise and Release and conduct further proceedings as appropriate.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's April 10, 2023 Amended Findings and Award; the WCJ found applicant sustained injury and permanent disability of 71% after apportionment; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the WCAB granted reconsideration, parties mediated, and reached a proposed settlement for Compromise and Release; the WCAB rescinded the April 10, 2023 decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for settlement review and further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 7, 2022.
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 defendant contended the record lacked substantial medical evidence to support the 71% permanent disability rating, but the WCJ found otherwise and the reconsideration was procedural, not on merits.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained injury to cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities as a machine feeder employed by Capabunga.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This injury was the basis for the permanent disability rating and the WCJ's findings.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.
Permanent disability was found to be 71% after apportionment by the WCJ.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This percentage was contested by defendant but was part of the original findings before reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued April 10, 2023, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her cervical spine, thoracic spine, bilateral shoulders, and upper extremities, as a machine feeder, while employed by Capabunga. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 71% after apportionment.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
substantial medical evidence
Defendant contended the record lacks substantial medical evidence to support the permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends, in relevant part, that the WCJ erred in finding permanent disability (PD) of 71% as the record lacks substantial medical evidence in support of same.
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.