What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further reviewp. 6
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 26, 2026, October 3, 2023.
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 the Petition for Reconsideration due to insufficient development of the record and procedural notice issues, deferring final decision pending further review.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration, and alternatively removal, regarding our May 26, 2026 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration. Therein, we granted defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 20, 2026. Applicant, newly aggrieved, contends that our May 26, 2026 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration does not meet the standard established by the Court of Appeal in Earley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The parties stipulated to one continuous period of cumulative trauma injury encompassing the entire period of employment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This stipulation was central to the reconsideration of the cumulative trauma periods issue.
From the decision · page 1(2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 769] so as to justify granting reconsideration for further study; that the grant of reconsideration will cause her further delay; that the parties stipulated that applicant sustained one continuous period of cumulative trauma encompassing the entire period of her employment; and that pursuant to the agreed medical evaluator (AME) opinion of Peter Newton, M.D., applicant sustained one period of cumulative trauma injury encompassing the entire period of her employment. Defendant filed an Answer. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal, the Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire
The parties were not provided notice of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1).
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of notice affected the timing and procedural fairness of the reconsideration process, justifying granting reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3administrative law judge, and no other notice to the parties of the transmission of the case to the
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.
Agreed medical evaluator opinion that applicant sustained one period of cumulative trauma injury encompassing entire employment period.
The AME opinion was part of the record considered in the Petition for Reconsideration regarding cumulative trauma periods.
From the decision · page 1(2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 769] so as to justify granting reconsideration for further study; that the grant of reconsideration will cause her further delay; that the parties stipulated that applicant sustained one continuous period of cumulative trauma encompassing the entire period of her employment; and that pursuant to the agreed medical evaluator (AME) opinion of Peter Newton, M.D., applicant sustained one period of cumulative trauma injury encompassing the entire period of her employment. Defendant filed an Answer. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal, the Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board, and parties must be notified of transmission.
From the decision · page 2record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to section 5950 et seq. I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code 1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Parties stipulated to one continuous period of cumulative trauma encompassing entire employment period.
From the decision · page 1(2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 769] so as to justify granting reconsideration for further study; that the grant of reconsideration will cause her further delay; that the parties stipulated that applicant sustained one continuous period of cumulative trauma encompassing the entire period of her employment; and that pursuant to the agreed medical evaluator (AME) opinion of Peter Newton, M.D., applicant sustained one period of cumulative trauma injury encompassing the entire period of her employment. Defendant filed an Answer. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration/Removal, the Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire
Lack of notice of transmission of case to Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1).
From the decision · page 3administrative law judge, and no other notice to the parties of the transmission of the case to the
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.