What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied by the WCAB panel decision on June 19, 2026.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on March 3, 2026, which affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award. The petition was denied by the WCAB panel decision on June 19, 2026.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 3, 2026.
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.
Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the listed conditions prior to the November 4, 2010 injury, including new medical reports which did not cure the evidentiary defect.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant did not provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for allergic rhinitis, IBS, GERD, and dermatitis prior to November 4, 2010 injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant the applicant did not meet the evidentiary burden to establish preexisting conditions as labor disabling impairments, leading to denial of her claim.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).
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.
Report fails to outline functional work restrictions or demonstrate preexisting labor disabling impairment prior to November 4, 2010 injury.
Report does not cure evidentiary defect in applicant's claim for preexisting labor disabling impairment.
From the decision · page 4Applicant introduces new medical reports but provides no legal justification for failing to submit them during the trial proceedings. (See Lab. Code, § 5903.) She admits her former attorney returned Dr. Campagna's records to her two years ago, establishing her possession of these documents long before we issued the March 3, 2026 ODAR. Even if we admitted Dr. Campagna's and Dr. Ou's reports into evidence, they do not cure the evidentiary defect in applicant's SIBTF claim. Dr. Campagna's report fails to outline any functional work restrictions or demonstrate how applicant's rheumatological conditions impaired her earning capacity or created a competitive handicap prior to November 4, 2010. Similarly, Dr. Ou's March 17, 2026 report evaluates applicant's current visual impairments without providing a retroactive impairment rating or evidence of a labor disabling vision impairment preceding the November 4, 2010 injury. Consequently, the newly proffered medical evidence fails to constitute substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling permanent disability.
Report evaluates current visual impairments but does not provide retroactive impairment rating or evidence of preexisting labor disabling vision impairment.
Report does not cure evidentiary defect in applicant's claim for preexisting labor disabling impairment.
From the decision · page 4Applicant introduces new medical reports but provides no legal justification for failing to submit them during the trial proceedings. (See Lab. Code, § 5903.) She admits her former attorney returned Dr. Campagna's records to her two years ago, establishing her possession of these documents long before we issued the March 3, 2026 ODAR. Even if we admitted Dr. Campagna's and Dr. Ou's reports into evidence, they do not cure the evidentiary defect in applicant's SIBTF claim. Dr. Campagna's report fails to outline any functional work restrictions or demonstrate how applicant's rheumatological conditions impaired her earning capacity or created a competitive handicap prior to November 4, 2010. Similarly, Dr. Ou's March 17, 2026 report evaluates applicant's current visual impairments without providing a retroactive impairment rating or evidence of a labor disabling vision impairment preceding the November 4, 2010 injury. Consequently, the newly proffered medical evidence fails to constitute substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling permanent disability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5903
Applicant's new medical reports were not admitted as they were not timely submitted during trial proceedings.
From the decision · page 11 Applicant attached two medical reports to her Petition that are not part of the evidentiary record. To the extent that applicant alleges that the 2026 report regarding her eye condition is newly discovered evidence under Labor Code section 5903, the body part of eyes was not raised at the time of the proceedings in February 9. 2022, and there is no evidence in the record that the condition was labor-disabling before her 2010 injury. With respect to the 2004 report, it is not newly discovered as it existed before the proceedings in 2022, and we do not consider it.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for allergic rhinitis, IBS, GERD, and dermatitis prior to November 4, 2010 injury.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).
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.