What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; original Findings of Fact, Order rescinded and substituted with new Findings of Fact, Order finding applicant did not receive the supplemental job displacement voucher mailed on or around December 24, 2019; all other issues deferred.
Petition for Reconsideration granted by the WCAB panel, rescinding the January 7, 2026 Findings of Fact, Order and substituting a new Findings of Fact, Order.
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's credible testimony that he did not receive the voucher rebutted the presumption of receipt, leading to a finding that applicant did not receive the voucher mailed to the official address record.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ issued a finding that defendant mailed the SJDV to applicant's address on the Official Address Record, which appears correct. However, the unrebutted testimony of applicant is that he was not living at that address at the time of service and that he did not receive the voucher. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible. (See Garza, supra.) Thus, the evidentiary presumption is rebutted, and we will find that applicant did not receive the SJDV that defendant mailed in 2019.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was not living at the address on the Official Address Record when the voucher was mailed and did not receive the voucher.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's credible testimony rebutted the presumption of receipt, leading to the finding that the voucher was not received.
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ issued a finding that defendant mailed the SJDV to applicant's address on the Official Address Record, which appears correct. However, the unrebutted testimony of applicant is that he was not living at that address at the time of service and that he did not receive the voucher. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible. (See Garza, supra.) Thus, the evidentiary presumption is rebutted, and we will find that applicant did not receive the SJDV that defendant mailed in 2019.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Service by mail requirements under WCAB Rule 10625
The rule sets the requirements for service by mail relevant to the issue of whether the voucher was received.
From the decision · page 4The sole issue listed for trial is whether applicant received the SJDV. The requirements for service by mail are set forth in WCAB Rule 10625, which states, in pertinent part:
Labor Code section 5313
Requirement for WCJ to make and file findings on all facts involved in the controversy under Labor Code section 5313
The WCJ must state reasons or grounds for determinations, enabling parties and the Board to ascertain the basis for decisions.
From the decision · page 3II. The WCJ shall "... make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy[.]" (§ 5313; see also, Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony denying receipt of the voucher
From the decision · page 5Here, the WCJ issued a finding that defendant mailed the SJDV to applicant's address on the Official Address Record, which appears correct. However, the unrebutted testimony of applicant is that he was not living at that address at the time of service and that he did not receive the voucher. The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible. (See Garza, supra.) Thus, the evidentiary presumption is rebutted, and we will find that applicant did not receive the SJDV that defendant mailed in 2019.
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.