California WCABLaw firm

Finnegan, Marks, Desmond & Jones

Finnegan, Marks, Desmond & Jones is named in 14 released California WCAB decisions from 2023–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (4), Medical treatment / UR / IMR (3) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at San Francisco, then Oakland. The firm it meets most often is Asvar Law (1).

Decisions: 14
Years: 2023–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 3

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 12 of 12 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Who they face

6 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

San Francisco 7
Oakland 6
Stockton 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

8 for the applicant
4 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ14079246 · 2026-05-26 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.6However, the WCJ did not follow Dr. Mandell's conclusions and determined that the WPI for the shoulder should be 5%, with a permanent disability rating of 11% and therefore applicant's permanent disability rating, including both the neck and right shoulder, was 26%. (Opinion on Decision (OOD), pp. 4-6; F&A, pp. 1-2.) The WCJ stated that Dr. Mandell's alternative rating might be viable under other circumstances. (OOD, pp. 4-6.) The WCJ explained that Dr. Mandell's use of grip strength was incorrect for an injury above the elbow and that the correct table for applicant's injury was 16-35 on page 510 of the AMA Guidelines. (OOD, pp. 4-6.)
The WCJ's 5% WPI rating for the right shoulder was not supported by substantial medical evidence, and Dr. Mandell's 17% WPI rating based on grip strength loss was not adequately clarified or supported. The Appeals Board found a lack of substantial evidence to support either rating and remanded for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10405282 · 2026-02-26 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded
Determinative passage · p.5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."
The Board found that the vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ15833920 · 2026-02-13 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2On November 13, 2025, the WCJ issued the instant F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's industrial injury resulted in permanent and total disability. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The accompanying Opinion on Decision explains that neurology QME Dr. McQuinn rated applicant's industrial vertigo at 29 percent whole person impairment (WPI), and applicant's headaches at 22 percent WPI. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-7.) Dr. McQuinn further opined that the impairment for applicant's vertigo and headache impairments should be added, rather than combined, because there was no significant overlap in the affected Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). (Id. at p. 7.) The WCJ observed that after adjustment for age, occupation, and future earnings modifier, applicant's vertigo resulted in 60 percent permanent disability, while the headaches resulted in 50 percent permanent disability.
The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition rather than combination of neurological impairments based on distinct activities of daily living affected by headaches and vertigo, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ19297551 · 2025-08-11 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.12Lastly, section 4605 provides: Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his or her own expense, a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires. Any report prepared by consulting or attending physicians pursuant to this section shall not be the sole basis of an award of compensation. A qualified medical evaluator or authorized treating physician shall address any report procured pursuant to this section and shall indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the findings or opinions stated in the report, and shall identify the bases for this opinion. (Lab. Code, § 4605.) Here, we have concluded that Dr. Tarin's medical report is relevant to the issue and must be provided to Dr. Bressler under section 4062.3(a)(2). We note that the application of section 4605 is more significant in the context of whether reporting by a consulting physician may be the basis for an award. Here the issue is causation, not permanent disability, but we observe that the language of section 4605 also supports a conclusion that the QME should review the reporting. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the WCJ's May 9, 2025 F&O, and issue a new decision ordering that Dr. Tarin's report be provided to QME Dr. Bressler.
The Appeals Board found that Dr. Tarin's pathology report is relevant and must be provided to the QME under Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2), rejecting the WCJ's exclusion based on AD Rule 35(e) and WCAB Rule 10682(b).
Official decision · page 12 →
ADJ18090375 · 2024-10-11 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, the Opinion and Decision and the Report explain why the March 22, 2024 report of primary treating physician Henry Koh, M.D. meets the criteria for expedited review pursuant to Labor Code section 4610(i)(3) and Administrative Rule 9792.9.1(c)(4) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.9.1, subd. (c)(4).) The Petition appears to argue that the criteria was not met because Dr. Koh did not use the specific language of the statute and/or regulation in explaining why expedited review was necessary. However, the statute and regulation only require that the request or accompanying report document the need for expedited review, not that any specific language be utilized or that the substantiation occur in any specific place of the request or accompanying medical report. Accordingly, we will deny defendant's Petition for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and Report quoted below. We have omitted the discussion in the Report of applicant's case manager's letter of May 6, 2024 as evidence that applicant's request for expedited review was properly supported. Since this letter was drafted after the submission of the RFA, and was not submitted to the defendant as part of the UR process, it cannot be a basis for stating that the request for expedited review was proper. However, Dr. Koh's report itself contains the basis for the necessity of expedited review.
The WCAB found that the Request for Authorization (RFA) for expedited utilization review was timely submitted and met the criteria for expedited review due to the applicant's serious traumatic brain injury and associated impairments posing an imminent and serious threat to health. The UR decision was untimely, and the requested supported living program was reasonably required medical treatment. Therefore, the defendant's petition contesting the timeliness and medical necessity was denied.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ11704922 · 2024-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.62. Amending the Pleadings and the Statute of Limitations Next, defendant argues that applicant's amending the pleadings to conform with the proof violates the statute of limitations. We do not agree. The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden of proof as to whether an application for adjudication is barred by the statute of limitations rests with defendant, (§ 5409, 5705; see City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 471 [209 Cal. Rptr. 463, 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 53].) The limitations period for which a claim must be filed is the later of (1) one year from the date of injury, (2) one year from the last provision of disability payments per Labor Code sections 4650 et. seq., or (3) one year from the last provision of medical benefits. (Ibid.) Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (§ 5709.) Failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional.
The Board held that amending the pleadings to conform to proof does not violate the statute of limitations and that the burden of proof on limitations rests with defendant.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12396719 · 2024-06-24 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processdeferred
Determinative passage · p.3We take no position on the ultimate resolution of any of these issues. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order of April 16, 2024 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact and Order of April 16, 2024 is RESCINDED and that the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:
The issue of entitlement to a new panel in neurology was deferred to the WCJ for initial ruling.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ13070871 · 2023-09-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed
Determinative passage · p.21As discussed above, one of the issues raised for trial, was applicant's claim for temporary disability, and again, as discussed above, I was able to make a determination regarding one period of disability. However, the evidence reflects that applicant may also be entitled to temporary disability before she began treating with Dr. Morley. For example, on December 7, 2020, Dr. Smallie wrote that applicant was not permanent and stationary and that applicant required work restrictions. (Exhibit A, pp. 5-6.) However, there is no evidence that defendant made applicant an offer of modified work upon receipt of that report. Similarly, the record reflected that applicant required work restrictions before she resigned, that she was missing up to four days a month from work because of pain, and that applicant believed that her employer was not accommodating her restrictions. (Exhibit E at pp. 23:24-25:7; Exhibit 8 at p. 8.) However, none of Dr.
The record was found insufficient to fully adjudicate temporary disability entitlement prior to April 4, 2022, requiring further development. Temporary disability was awarded for April 4, 2022 through September 7, 2022 based on credible testimony and medical reports.
Official decision · page 21 →
ADJ19297551 · 2025-10-28 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration (Petition) of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued on August 11, 2025 (Prior Opinion). In the Prior Opinion, the Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration; rescinded the May 9, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ); and substituted new Findings and Order wherein the Appeals Board found, in relevant part, that the April 19, 2024 report of David Tarin, M.D., may be submitted to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Daniel Bressler, M.D., pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2) 1, and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report shall be sent to the QME.
The Appeals Board found no merit to defendants' petition for removal or reconsideration, concluding that there was no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to applicant and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy. The Board upheld its prior decision allowing Dr. Tarin's report to be submitted to the QME Dr. Bressler.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16179467 · 2025-09-24 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision is issued.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11444894 · 2023-11-03 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration, and we will order that this matter be referred to a workers compensation administrative law judge or designated hearing officer of the Appeals Board for a status conference. Our order granting applicant's 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 record 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 Labor Code section 5950 et seq.
The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration to allow further review and development of the record.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ17765957 · 2023-08-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In her Petition for Reconsideration, applicant claims that the settlement was improper because she could not understand it and she also references another injury, and that she should
The petition was dismissed because the applicant's claims were premature and unsupported by evidence or testimony in the record, and the matter should be considered as a Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with development of the record.
Official decision · page 4 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

FINNEGAN, MARKS, DESMOND & JONES
Finnegan, Marks, Desmond & Jones
FINNEGAN MARKS DESMOND JONES

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Finnegan, Marks, Desmond & Jones

Decisions

Years

2023–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the applicant

4 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Counted over 14 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ14079246 · 2026-05-26 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.6However, the WCJ did not follow Dr. Mandell's conclusions and determined that the WPI for the shoulder should be 5%, with a permanent disability rating of 11% and therefore applicant's permanent disability rating, including both the neck and right shoulder, was 26%. (Opinion on Decision (OOD), pp. 4-6; F&A, pp. 1-2.) The WCJ stated that Dr. Mandell's alternative rating might be viable under other circumstances. (OOD, pp. 4-6.) The WCJ explained that Dr. Mandell's use of grip strength was incorrect for an injury above the elbow and that the correct table for applicant's injury was 16-35 on page 510 of the AMA Guidelines. (OOD, pp. 4-6.)

The WCJ's 5% WPI rating for the right shoulder was not supported by substantial medical evidence, and Dr. Mandell's 17% WPI rating based on grip strength loss was not adequately clarified or supported. The Appeals Board found a lack of substantial evidence to support either rating and remanded for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10405282 · 2026-02-26 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

Determinative passage · p.5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."

The Board found that the vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ15833920 · 2026-02-13 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2On November 13, 2025, the WCJ issued the instant F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's industrial injury resulted in permanent and total disability. (Finding of Fact No. 4.) The accompanying Opinion on Decision explains that neurology QME Dr. McQuinn rated applicant's industrial vertigo at 29 percent whole person impairment (WPI), and applicant's headaches at 22 percent WPI. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-7.) Dr. McQuinn further opined that the impairment for applicant's vertigo and headache impairments should be added, rather than combined, because there was no significant overlap in the affected Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). (Id. at p. 7.) The WCJ observed that after adjustment for age, occupation, and future earnings modifier, applicant's vertigo resulted in 60 percent permanent disability, while the headaches resulted in 50 percent permanent disability.

The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting the addition rather than combination of neurological impairments based on distinct activities of daily living affected by headaches and vertigo, leading to a finding of permanent and total disability.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ19297551 · 2025-08-11 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.12Lastly, section 4605 provides: Nothing contained in this chapter shall limit the right of the employee to provide, at his or her own expense, a consulting physician or any attending physicians whom he or she desires. Any report prepared by consulting or attending physicians pursuant to this section shall not be the sole basis of an award of compensation. A qualified medical evaluator or authorized treating physician shall address any report procured pursuant to this section and shall indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with the findings or opinions stated in the report, and shall identify the bases for this opinion. (Lab. Code, § 4605.) Here, we have concluded that Dr. Tarin's medical report is relevant to the issue and must be provided to Dr. Bressler under section 4062.3(a)(2). We note that the application of section 4605 is more significant in the context of whether reporting by a consulting physician may be the basis for an award. Here the issue is causation, not permanent disability, but we observe that the language of section 4605 also supports a conclusion that the QME should review the reporting. Accordingly, we grant applicant's Petition, rescind the WCJ's May 9, 2025 F&O, and issue a new decision ordering that Dr. Tarin's report be provided to QME Dr. Bressler.

The Appeals Board found that Dr. Tarin's pathology report is relevant and must be provided to the QME under Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2), rejecting the WCJ's exclusion based on AD Rule 35(e) and WCAB Rule 10682(b).

Official decision · page 12 →

ADJ18090375 · 2024-10-11 · Oakland District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Turning to the merits, the Opinion and Decision and the Report explain why the March 22, 2024 report of primary treating physician Henry Koh, M.D. meets the criteria for expedited review pursuant to Labor Code section 4610(i)(3) and Administrative Rule 9792.9.1(c)(4) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9792.9.1, subd. (c)(4).) The Petition appears to argue that the criteria was not met because Dr. Koh did not use the specific language of the statute and/or regulation in explaining why expedited review was necessary. However, the statute and regulation only require that the request or accompanying report document the need for expedited review, not that any specific language be utilized or that the substantiation occur in any specific place of the request or accompanying medical report. Accordingly, we will deny defendant's Petition for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and Report quoted below. We have omitted the discussion in the Report of applicant's case manager's letter of May 6, 2024 as evidence that applicant's request for expedited review was properly supported. Since this letter was drafted after the submission of the RFA, and was not submitted to the defendant as part of the UR process, it cannot be a basis for stating that the request for expedited review was proper. However, Dr. Koh's report itself contains the basis for the necessity of expedited review.

The WCAB found that the Request for Authorization (RFA) for expedited utilization review was timely submitted and met the criteria for expedited review due to the applicant's serious traumatic brain injury and associated impairments posing an imminent and serious threat to health. The UR decision was untimely, and the requested supported living program was reasonably required medical treatment. Therefore, the defendant's petition contesting the timeliness and medical necessity was denied.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ11704922 · 2024-08-29 · San Francisco District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.62. Amending the Pleadings and the Statute of Limitations Next, defendant argues that applicant's amending the pleadings to conform with the proof violates the statute of limitations. We do not agree. The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and therefore, the burden of proof as to whether an application for adjudication is barred by the statute of limitations rests with defendant, (§ 5409, 5705; see City of Fresno v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson) (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 467, 471 [209 Cal. Rptr. 463, 50 Cal. Comp. Cases 53].) The limitations period for which a claim must be filed is the later of (1) one year from the date of injury, (2) one year from the last provision of disability payments per Labor Code sections 4650 et. seq., or (3) one year from the last provision of medical benefits. (Ibid.) Labor Code section 5709 states that "No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of taking testimony shall invalidate any order, decision, award, or rule made and filed as specified in this division..." (§ 5709.) Failure to comply with the rules as to details is not jurisdictional.

The Board held that amending the pleadings to conform to proof does not violate the statute of limitations and that the burden of proof on limitations rests with defendant.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12396719 · 2024-06-24 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processdeferred

Determinative passage · p.3We take no position on the ultimate resolution of any of these issues. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order of April 16, 2024 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings of Fact and Order of April 16, 2024 is RESCINDED and that the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor:

The issue of entitlement to a new panel in neurology was deferred to the WCJ for initial ruling.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ13070871 · 2023-09-15 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilitymixed

Determinative passage · p.21As discussed above, one of the issues raised for trial, was applicant's claim for temporary disability, and again, as discussed above, I was able to make a determination regarding one period of disability. However, the evidence reflects that applicant may also be entitled to temporary disability before she began treating with Dr. Morley. For example, on December 7, 2020, Dr. Smallie wrote that applicant was not permanent and stationary and that applicant required work restrictions. (Exhibit A, pp. 5-6.) However, there is no evidence that defendant made applicant an offer of modified work upon receipt of that report. Similarly, the record reflected that applicant required work restrictions before she resigned, that she was missing up to four days a month from work because of pain, and that applicant believed that her employer was not accommodating her restrictions. (Exhibit E at pp. 23:24-25:7; Exhibit 8 at p. 8.) However, none of Dr.

The record was found insufficient to fully adjudicate temporary disability entitlement prior to April 4, 2022, requiring further development. Temporary disability was awarded for April 4, 2022 through September 7, 2022 based on credible testimony and medical reports.

Official decision · page 21 →

ADJ19297551 · 2025-10-28 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendants filed a Joint Petition for Removal or Reconsideration (Petition) of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration, issued on August 11, 2025 (Prior Opinion). In the Prior Opinion, the Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for reconsideration; rescinded the May 9, 2025 Findings and Order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ); and substituted new Findings and Order wherein the Appeals Board found, in relevant part, that the April 19, 2024 report of David Tarin, M.D., may be submitted to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Daniel Bressler, M.D., pursuant to Labor Code section 4062.3(a)(2) 1, and ordered that Dr. Tarin's report shall be sent to the QME.

The Appeals Board found no merit to defendants' petition for removal or reconsideration, concluding that there was no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to applicant and that reconsideration was an adequate remedy. The Board upheld its prior decision allowing Dr. Tarin's report to be submitted to the QME Dr. Bressler.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16179467 · 2025-09-24 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on May 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if a final adverse decision is issued.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11444894 · 2023-11-03 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration, and we will order that this matter be referred to a workers compensation administrative law judge or designated hearing officer of the Appeals Board for a status conference. Our order granting applicant's 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 record 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 Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and granted reconsideration to allow further review and development of the record.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ17765957 · 2023-08-22 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In her Petition for Reconsideration, applicant claims that the settlement was improper because she could not understand it and she also references another injury, and that she should

The petition was dismissed because the applicant's claims were premature and unsupported by evidence or testimony in the record, and the matter should be considered as a Petition to Set Aside the Stipulations with development of the record.

Official decision · page 4 →