What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found no industrial injury to the circulatory system, nervous system, head, or brain as a result of the alleged February 18, 2022 specific injury or cumulative trauma injury from November 1, 2005 through February 15, 2022.
Favours neutral
This finding was the basis for the petitions for reconsideration and the Appeals Board's decision to defer the issues for further development.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation
administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 1, 2025, wherein it was found
that "applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her circulatory system, nervous system, head, or
brain as a result of an alleged February 18, 2022 specific injury or an alleged cumulative trauma
injury from November 1, 2005 through February 15, 2022." It appears that the above claimed
body parts encompass those involved in a February 18, 2022 stroke. The parties had stipulated
that applicant claimed a specific February 18, 2022 injury to her "circulatory system, nervous
system, respiratory system, head, brain, chemical exposure, right fingers, right hand, right arm,
excretory system, right leg, right ankle, right foot, and right toes while working as a Press
Operator/Assembler for TrafFix Devices, Inc.
The parties stipulated that the injury claim included multiple body parts and exposure dates, initially as a specific injury but amended to a cumulative injury period.
Favours neutral
The amendment of the claim's nature was challenged and deferred for a single final decision to avoid piecemeal findings.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation
administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 1, 2025, wherein it was found
that "applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her circulatory system, nervous system, head, or
brain as a result of an alleged February 18, 2022 specific injury or an alleged cumulative trauma
injury from November 1, 2005 through February 15, 2022." It appears that the above claimed
body parts encompass those involved in a February 18, 2022 stroke. The parties had stipulated
that applicant claimed a specific February 18, 2022 injury to her "circulatory system, nervous
system, respiratory system, head, brain, chemical exposure, right fingers, right hand, right arm,
excretory system, right leg, right ankle, right foot, and right toes while working as a Press
Operator/Assembler for TrafFix Devices, Inc.
The Appeals Board found that discovery orders are non-final and defendant did not show irreparable harm, allowing further development of the record.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the denial of defendant's petition to prevent premature finality and allowed all defenses to be presented later.
From the decision · page 4here contains a finding that is final (injury to the head and neck), defendant's Petition only
challenges the non-final order regarding discovery. Since orders pertaining to discovery are not
final orders, these issues are subject to the removal standard rather than the reconsideration
standard. (See Capital Builders Hardware, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gaona) (2016)
5 Cal.App.5th 658 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 1122].) The removal standard requires "significant
prejudice" or "irreparable harm." (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 10955, subd. (a).) We find that this
standard has not been met as defendant will be able to present all applicable defenses and will be
able to question any reporting physician regarding these deferred body parts.