SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ19403295 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ19403295 · June 8, 2026

Petition for Reconsideration granted, March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 1
District office: San Francisco

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted, March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for Reconsideration granted, March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Read the official decision →

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.

Statute of limitationsRemandedbilateral wrists

The WCJ's March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact on date of injury and statute of limitations were rescinded due to insufficient substantial evidence and incomplete record development.

From the decision · page 10Accordingly, the record is not fully developed and the WCJ's decision was not based on substantial evidence. We grant KForce's Petition as one seeking reconsideration, rescind the March 2, 2026 Findings of Fact, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Applicant's deposition testimony was inconsistent and did not support injury during KForce employment.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This undermined the WCJ's finding of a single cumulative injury including KForce employment.

From the decision · page 10The decision here was based on the two QME reports, and applicant's deposition testimony in lieu of trial testimony. Applicant's deposition and the evaluation by the QME took place prior to KForce being joined as a party defendant, such that evidence in connection with applicant's work with KForce could not be fully developed or elicited. Due to the number of inconsistencies and the lack of information about applicant's actual duties at K-Force, applicant's deposition testimony is not sufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence. Pointedly, although Dr. Shaw provided supplemental medical reporting after KForce was joined, he never reevaluated applicant after K-Force was joined. As such, Dr. Shaw's medical reporting cannot be considered substantial evidence because it is based on an amorphous factual record and does not clearly discuss his conclusions with respect to causation. (See, Hegglin, supra, at p. 169.)

Dr. Shaw's medical reports were based on an incomplete factual record and did not clearly discuss causation with respect to KForce employment.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This led to rejection of Dr. Shaw's opinion as substantial evidence for the WCJ's findings.

From the decision · page 10The decision here was based on the two QME reports, and applicant's deposition testimony in lieu of trial testimony. Applicant's deposition and the evaluation by the QME took place prior to KForce being joined as a party defendant, such that evidence in connection with applicant's work with KForce could not be fully developed or elicited. Due to the number of inconsistencies and the lack of information about applicant's actual duties at K-Force, applicant's deposition testimony is not sufficient to support a decision based on substantial evidence. Pointedly, although Dr. Shaw provided supplemental medical reporting after KForce was joined, he never reevaluated applicant after K-Force was joined. As such, Dr. Shaw's medical reporting cannot be considered substantial evidence because it is based on an amorphous factual record and does not clearly discuss his conclusions with respect to causation. (See, Hegglin, supra, at p. 169.)