What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; June 5, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order rescinded; new order issued removing injury finding; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration granted, rescinding the June 5, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order and substituting a new order removing the finding of injury AOE/COE; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 21, 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 WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE was removed because no body parts were identified and no medical evidence supported injury to any body parts, making the injury finding legally unenforceable.
From the decision · page 6III. Next, we observe that in the June 5, 2025 F&O, the WCJ failed to list any body parts with respect to his finding of injury AOE/COE in the Findings of Fact #1. At the expedited hearing, the parties stipulated the decedent sustained injury AOE/COE with body parts still in dispute. (MOH, May 28, 2025, p. 2:1-4.) However, failure to include at least one of the body parts injured in a stipulation to injury can lead to anomalous results, and it is a practice that should be avoided. At least one body part must be identified because a finding that an injury occurred without an identified body part may not be a legally enforceable AOE/COE finding. (Lab. Code, § 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No medical evidence supports injury to any body parts
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without medical evidence of injury to body parts, the injury finding is not legally enforceable and defendant's obligation to advance benefits may not accrue
From the decision · page 7Here, the WCJ must address the issue of injury AOE/COE in the first instance. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gangwish) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].) Moreover, the WCJ's determination of any finding "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 477 (en banc decision); Hernandez v. Staff Leasing (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 343).) There is currently no medical evidence in the record to support that the decedent sustained any injury to any body parts. Thus, we will remove Findings of Fact #1 of the June 5, 2025 F&O.
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.
Issued a report dated February 6, 2025, which was ordered by the WCJ to be sent to the QME for review and comment.
From the decision · page 3AOE/COE while employed as a Warehouse Lead at Sacramento, California by Pepsico. (Findings of Fact No. 1.) The WCJ ordered that the report of Dr. Mahmud dated February 6, 2025 and applicant's cover letter dated February 26, 2025 may be sent to the PQME Dr. McClintock- Greenberg for review and comment. (Order No.1.)
Opined in June 4, 2024 report and August 29, 2024 deposition that no data indicates the decedent's COVID-19 infection was due to industrial exposure.
From the decision · page 2However, in the Stipulation and Order dated October 20, 2022, the parties stipulated to dismissing case number ADJ14868756. On May 10, 2024, applicant amended the specific injury, ADJ15071496, to reflect a date of injury of January 6, 2020 and to include the right ankle, right foot, right lower extremities multiple part, and body system (diabetes). The parties have selected Andrew McClintock Greenberg, M.D., Ph.D, as the QME in internal medicine. The QME issued three reports and was deposed on August 29, 2024. (Joint Exhibits 101-104.) In the latest report dated June 4, 2024, the QME opined "no data indicates that the applicant's COVID-19 infection was due to industrial exposure." (Joint Exhibit 102, p. 4.) On August 29, 2024, the PQME confirmed his opinion at the deposition. (Joint Exhibit 101, p. 35:9- 14.) Per applicant attorney's request, Massed Mahmud D.O., Ph.D. issued a report dated February 6, 2025. (Applicant's Exhibit 1.) Applicant sought to provide the QME with Dr. Mahmud's report, which defendant objected to.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
A finding of injury must identify at least one body part to be legally enforceable under Labor Code section 3600(a) and South Coast Framing v. WCAB (Clark)
The WCJ's injury finding was removed because it did not identify any body parts, making it unenforceable.
From the decision · page 6III. Next, we observe that in the June 5, 2025 F&O, the WCJ failed to list any body parts with respect to his finding of injury AOE/COE in the Findings of Fact #1. At the expedited hearing, the parties stipulated the decedent sustained injury AOE/COE with body parts still in dispute. (MOH, May 28, 2025, p. 2:1-4.) However, failure to include at least one of the body parts injured in a stipulation to injury can lead to anomalous results, and it is a practice that should be avoided. At least one body part must be identified because a finding that an injury occurred without an identified body part may not be a legally enforceable AOE/COE finding. (Lab. Code, § 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No medical evidence in the record to support injury to any body parts
From the decision · page 7Here, the WCJ must address the issue of injury AOE/COE in the first instance. (See Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gangwish) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584].) Moreover, the WCJ's determination of any finding "must be based on admitted evidence in the record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 477 (en banc decision); Hernandez v. Staff Leasing (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 343).) There is currently no medical evidence in the record to support that the decedent sustained any injury to any body parts. Thus, we will remove Findings of Fact #1 of the June 5, 2025 F&O.
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.