What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration is granted. The March 11, 2024 Findings, Orders and Award is affirmed except amended to defer the issues of permanent and stationary date, apportionment, permanent disability, and attorney's fees. The matter is returned for further development of the record.
Defendant Beta Healthcare Group filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the March 11, 2024 Findings, Orders and Award. The WCJ prepared a Report recommending denial of the Petition. The Board granted reconsideration, amended the Findings, Orders and Award to defer the issue of permanent disability, and returned the matter for further development of the record.
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 Board found that the WCJ did not provide sufficient reasons for relying on Dr. Scheinberg's reports over Dr. Shah's reports, which is required under Hamilton and related case law for substantial evidence. Therefore, the issue of permanent disability and apportionment was deferred for further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3Here, defendant challenges the reliance on Dr. Scheinberg's reports and urges that the reports of Jayprakash Shah, M.D. are more reliable. Under Hamilton, supra, the WCJ must provide his reasons for why he relied on Dr. Scheinberg's reports instead of Dr. Shah's reports. It is only then that we can meaningfully evaluate the reasons or grounds upon which the court's decisions were made. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74].) Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, amend the Findings, Orders and Award to defer the issue of permanent disability, and return the matter for further development of the record.
The Board found that the applicant's contention regarding entitlement to the SJDB voucher was untimely as a petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3Additionally, to the extent that applicant's contention that the WCJ erred in denying applicant a SJDB voucher can be construed as a petition for reconsideration, it is untimely.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ did not provide reasons for relying on Dr. Scheinberg's reports over Dr. Shah's reports.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without such reasons, the Board cannot meaningfully evaluate the substantial evidence supporting the permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 3Here, defendant challenges the reliance on Dr. Scheinberg's reports and urges that the reports of Jayprakash Shah, M.D. are more reliable. Under Hamilton, supra, the WCJ must provide his reasons for why he relied on Dr. Scheinberg's reports instead of Dr. Shah's reports. It is only then that we can meaningfully evaluate the reasons or grounds upon which the court's decisions were made. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74].) Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, amend the Findings, Orders and Award to defer the issue of permanent disability, and return the matter for further development of the record.
Applicant's contention for SJDB voucher was untimely as a petition for reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board denied the SJDB voucher claim on procedural grounds of untimeliness.
From the decision · page 3Additionally, to the extent that applicant's contention that the WCJ erred in denying applicant a SJDB voucher can be construed as a petition for reconsideration, it is untimely.
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 permanent disability rating of 24%.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Scheinberg's report for the permanent disability rating, but the Board found the WCJ did not adequately explain why Dr. Scheinberg's opinion was preferred over Dr. Shah's.
From the decision · page 1Defendant Beta Healthcare Group seeks reconsideration of the March 11, 2024 Findings, Orders and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant sustained permanent disability of 24% based on the report of Richard Scheinberg, M.D., and that applicant was not entitled to the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefits Voucher (SJDB).
Challenged the reliability of Dr. Scheinberg's reports and was urged by defendant as more reliable.
The Board noted that the WCJ must provide reasons for preferring Dr. Scheinberg's reports over Dr. Shah's to meet the substantial evidence standard.
From the decision · page 3Here, defendant challenges the reliance on Dr. Scheinberg's reports and urges that the reports of Jayprakash Shah, M.D. are more reliable. Under Hamilton, supra, the WCJ must provide his reasons for why he relied on Dr. Scheinberg's reports instead of Dr. Shah's reports. It is only then that we can meaningfully evaluate the reasons or grounds upon which the court's decisions were made. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 621-22 [2010 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 74].) Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, amend the Findings, Orders and Award to defer the issue of permanent disability, and return the matter for further development of the record.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473; Labor Code §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627; E.L. Yeager v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and supported by substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on accurate history and examination, and setting forth reasoning to support conclusions.
The Board found the WCJ did not provide sufficient reasons for relying on Dr. Scheinberg's reports over Dr. Shah's reports, which is required for substantial evidence.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credibility was questioned by defendant.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that applicant's credibility is questionable and that the opinions of Dr. Scheinberg are not substantial evidence.
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.