What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted defendant's petition for reconsideration, amended the WCJ's decision to defer the permanent and stationary date issue, and ordered further medical record development and supplemental psychiatric QME opinion.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Amended Findings, Award and Order dated November 18, 2020, challenging the telephonic hearing and permanent and stationary findings; WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration; WCAB granted reconsideration and amended the decision to defer the permanent and stationary issue.
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 WCAB found it premature to decide the permanent and stationary date as the issue of permanent disability was deferred and reserved jurisdiction for future determination.
From the decision · page 37) The issue of permanent and stationary date is deferred, with jurisdiction reserved.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified at telephonic hearing that he underwent surgery weeks before trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This testimony supported defendant's argument that applicant was not yet permanent and stationary.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in (1) making findings after a telephonic hearing, rather than continuing trial until an in-person hearing could be conducted (due to the present COVID-19 pandemic) and in (2) finding the applicant permanent and stationary, arguing that applicant is not yet permanent and stationary because of applicant's trial testimony that he underwent surgery weeks before trial. We have received an Answer from the applicant, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).
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.
Ordered to provide a supplemental opinion on apportionment issues.
From the decision · page 3IT IS ORDERED that the parties are to further develop the medical record, and obtain a supplemental opinion from the psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. James O'Dowd, on the issues of apportionment, as further set forth in the Opinion on Decision.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Gao v. Chevron Corp. (2021) 86 Cal.Comp.Cases 44
Telephonic hearings are proper during the COVID-19 pandemic as supported by Gao v. Chevron Corp. (2021) 86 Cal.Comp.Cases 44 [Appeals Bd. Significant Panel Decision].
The WCAB affirmed the propriety of telephonic hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic in this case.
From the decision · page 1For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we affirm the propriety of a telephonic conference during the COVID-19 pandemic. (See Gao v. Chevron Corp. (2021) 86 Cal.Comp.Cases 44 [Appeals Bd. Significant Panel Decision].) However, we will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of permanent and stationary date.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's trial testimony about recent surgery weeks before trial
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in (1) making findings after a telephonic hearing, rather than continuing trial until an in-person hearing could be conducted (due to the present COVID-19 pandemic) and in (2) finding the applicant permanent and stationary, arguing that applicant is not yet permanent and stationary because of applicant's trial testimony that he underwent surgery weeks before trial. We have received an Answer from the applicant, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).
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.