What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is granted. Final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Defendant filed a timely verified Petition for Reconsideration dated September 18, 2024, challenging the Findings of Fact and Award and Order issued on August 28, 2024. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial of reconsideration. The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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 Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the voluminous record and lack of sufficient time to review the merits within the current time constraints, despite deficiencies in the defendant's petition.
From the decision · page 6Accordingly, and to allow all parties due process and to further our obligation to achieve a substantial understanding of the record when deciding reconsideration, we will grant reconsideration to study the issues presented.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The record is voluminous with approximately 51 exhibits and 19 trial days over four years, making it impossible to complete a substantial review within current time constraints.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact led the Appeals Board to grant reconsideration to allow further review and due process.
From the decision · page 6Here, the record contains approximately 51 exhibits and spanned approximately 19 trial days with a court reporter over the course of four years. In short, the record is voluminous. Yet defendant has presented a 3-page petition without any citation to the record or any legal authority in support of its contentions. For example, defendant alleges that it credited applicant with leave that applicant took during the period of temporary disability; however, defendant does not cite to a single exhibit that establishes this fact. Accordingly, we admonish attorney David Demshki (CA SBN 173446) that future petitions for reconsideration filed with the Appeals Board in this or any other case shall comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure, including WCAB Rule 10945 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945), and shall contain specific citations to the record and shall clearly and fairly state all material evidence. Failure to follow this admonishment may result in future petitions being denied for failure to comply with the rule.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5902; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, section 10945
A petition for reconsideration must fairly state all material evidence relative to the points at issue and contain specific references to the record and principles of law involved.
The defendant's petition was admonished for failing to comply with these requirements, but the Appeals Board still granted reconsideration to allow due process and thorough review.
From the decision · page 5II. We would first note that a petition for reconsideration must fairly state all of the material evidence relative to the point or points at issue. (Lab. Code, § 5902; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945.) Each contention contained in a petition for reconsideration must be stated separately and clearly set forth. (Id.) A petition for reconsideration may be denied if it is unsupported by specific references to the record and to the principles of law involved. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(a); See Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehab. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 ("an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record... to test his claim"); City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal. App.4th 266, 287 ("[r]ather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has waived a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record"); Salas v. Cal. Dept. of Transp. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1074 ("[w]e are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiffs'] contentions"); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant's petition lacked specific citations to the record and legal authority, making it difficult to review the merits within time constraints.
From the decision · page 6Here, the record contains approximately 51 exhibits and spanned approximately 19 trial days with a court reporter over the course of four years. In short, the record is voluminous. Yet defendant has presented a 3-page petition without any citation to the record or any legal authority in support of its contentions. For example, defendant alleges that it credited applicant with leave that applicant took during the period of temporary disability; however, defendant does not cite to a single exhibit that establishes this fact. Accordingly, we admonish attorney David Demshki (CA SBN 173446) that future petitions for reconsideration filed with the Appeals Board in this or any other case shall comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure, including WCAB Rule 10945 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945), and shall contain specific citations to the record and shall clearly and fairly state all material evidence. Failure to follow this admonishment may result in future petitions being denied for failure to comply with the rule.
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.