ADJ15732786 · May 22, 2026

The WCJ failed to adequately explain the basis for admitting or excluding each exhibit and which materials should be provided to the QME, depriving the parties of meaningful review. The F&O was rescinded and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 8Next, the F&O fails to list materials to be reviewed by the QME by their exhibit letter designation and instead lists them by a different letter which creates confusion. Even with respect to the exhibits that contained over a thousand pages, the WCJ made no attempt to cull the relevant materials and merely states that the records that were not admitted were "not relevant, duplicative, overly burdensome, or their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value." The decision failed to explain the basis for admitting or excluding each potential exhibit into evidence, and just as significantly, the decision failed to provide a second analysis as to why each document would be provided to the QME, thereby depriving the parties of any meaningful review on the merits.

The WCJ failed to explain the basis for admitting or excluding each exhibit and which materials should be provided to the QME, depriving the parties of meaningful review.

Favours neutral

This lack of explanation and record prevented meaningful appellate review, requiring rescission of the F&O and remand.

From the decision · page 8Next, the F&O fails to list materials to be reviewed by the QME by their exhibit letter designation and instead lists them by a different letter which creates confusion. Even with respect to the exhibits that contained over a thousand pages, the WCJ made no attempt to cull the relevant materials and merely states that the records that were not admitted were "not relevant, duplicative, overly burdensome, or their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value." The decision failed to explain the basis for admitting or excluding each potential exhibit into evidence, and just as significantly, the decision failed to provide a second analysis as to why each document would be provided to the QME, thereby depriving the parties of any meaningful review on the merits.

Lab. Code §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903; Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. WCAB (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCAB (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39; Maranian v. WCAB (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068; Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. WCAB (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658

A petition for reconsideration may only be taken from a final order, decision, or award; interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not final orders.

The WCJ's orders regarding admissibility of evidence and QME review were interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 4II. A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Threshold issues include, but are not limited to, the following: injury arising out of and in the course of employment, jurisdiction, the existence of an employment relationship and statute of limitations issues. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 658, 662 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p.

Lab. Code §§ 5708, 5709; Allison v. WCAB (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654

The WCJ and Appeals Board have broad discretion in evidentiary matters and are not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but must act to ascertain substantial rights and carry out justice.

The WCJ has flexibility to admit documents into evidence, but must provide a clear record and reasoning for each decision.

From the decision · page 9Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 663 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) We emphasize that in workers' compensation proceedings, the Labor Code makes explicit that the WCJ and the Appeals Board have greater discretion with respect to evidentiary matters than courts in civil proceedings, and not narrower discretion. Section 5708 mandates that we are not "bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry in the manner, through oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." (Lab. Code, § 5708.) Section 5709 specifically allows informality in our proceedings and ensures that "admission into the record, and use as proof of any fact in dispute, of any evidence not admissible under the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure" will not invalidate an order, decision or award. (Lab. Code, § 5709.) Hence, in reviewing the identified materials offered by defendant, the WCJ has significant flexibility to admit documents into evidence. Nonetheless, it is also defendant's responsibility to

Lab. Code § 4062.3; Suon v. California Dairies (2018) 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1803 (en banc)

Section 4062.3 governs information to be provided to a QME, including medical and nonmedical records relevant to the medical issue.

The WCJ must determine and explain which materials should be reviewed by the QME and identify them with particularity.

From the decision · page 10Section 4062.3 describes information to be provided to a QME and states in relevant part:

The WCJ excluded certain exhibits as duplicative, overly burdensome, or potentially privileged, but failed to explain the basis for each exclusion or inclusion, impacting the ability for meaningful review.

From the decision · page 7The reason the additional exhibits were excluded from evidence was based upon the fact that they were either not relevant, duplicative, overly burdensome, or their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value....