What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; February 9, 2026 Findings and Orders rescinded; issue of new and further disability deferred for further evidentiary development.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 9, 2026 Findings and Orders denying new and further disability and additional QME panels; the WCJ recommended denial; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred the issue of new and further disability for further development of the record.
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 found the evidentiary record insufficient to adjudicate new and further disability and compensable consequence injuries, and thus deferred the issue for further development of the medical record.
From the decision · page 9Accordingly, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Findings of Fact that relate to the issue of new and further disability, and substitute a new Order that the issue of whether applicant has sustained new and further disability as alleged in her Petition to Reopen dated April 13, 2021, is deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's Petition to Reopen was timely filed within five years of original injury, invoking continuing jurisdiction.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Established jurisdiction for new and further disability claim.
From the decision · page 6Applying these principles to the matter at bar, we first observe that applicant has timely invoked the continuing jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The parties have stipulated that applicant's injury was sustained from June 26, 2014 to June 13, 2016. (Minutes of Hearing, dated October 28, 2025, at p. 2:12.) Applicant's Petition to Reopen was filed on April 13, 2021, which is within five years of applicant's original injury. Accordingly, the Petition for New and Further Disability timely invokes the continuing jurisdiction of the WCAB. (Lab. Code, § 5410; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10536.) Once invoked, the jurisdiction granted the WCAB by section 5410 continues until such time as the underlying petition is resolved.
Applicant alleged new and further disability to original and additional body parts, supported by contemporaneous medical records and trial testimony.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported claim but medical evidence was insufficient to adjudicate compensability.
From the decision · page 6Applicant's alleged symptoms with respect to her left knee and body parts claimed as a compensable consequence of the original injury are reflected in both the trial testimony and in the medical record. Applicant's trial testimony indicates that following the finalization of her Award in 2021, she experienced an increase in symptoms, including clicking in the left knee and the knee giving way unexpectedly. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated December 16,
Medical evidence addressing compensable consequence injuries beyond left knee was lacking, necessitating further development of the record.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Required deferral of issue for further evidentiary development.
From the decision · page 9Medical evidence is thus required to ascertain whether applicant's original injury has resulted in new and further disability and whether applicant's claimed additional body parts and systems are compensable consequence injuries. (Applied Materials, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1080; Sarabi, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 926; Weitzman, supra, 23 Cal.3d 158.) While the parties have obtained reporting from QME Dr. Samson addressing applicant's left knee disability, no equivalent reporting has been obtained addressing any other of the claimed body parts/systems. Because neither side has presented substantial evidence on which a decision could be based, we conclude that the evidentiary record must be developed. (McKernan, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th.928; Tyler, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 393-395.)
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.
Identified industrial causation and permanent disability for left knee injury in 2019 report.
Evaluated applicant in 2023 and opined no additional impairment beyond prior AME report; noted abnormal sleep and fatigue questionnaire results and depression treatment.
From the decision · page 2On April 18, 2023, Dr. Samson evaluated applicant and opined that applicant had not sustained additional impairment beyond that identified by former AME Dr. Berman. (Ex. A, Report of Robert Samson, M.D., dated April 18, 2023, at p. 37.)
Diagnosed multiple musculoskeletal injuries and depressive and anxiety disorders; opined some diagnoses are industrial in origin and aggravated by employment.
From the decision · page 7The corresponding records of applicant's PTP Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., reflect applicant's musculoskeletal complaints across multiple body parts, including lumbar, thoracic and cervical spine pain with corresponding reduction in range in motion and compromise in activities of daily living. (Ex. 4, Report of Koruon Daldalyan, dated December 28, 2023, at pp. 2-3, 5.) Dr. Daldalyan diagnosed "musculoskeletal injuries involving the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral hips, [and] bilateral knees," as well as "internal derangement of the left knee, status post surgical repair with reinjury," and depressive and anxiety disorders. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) Dr. Daldalyan opined that "some of these diagnoses are industrial in origin and are either initiated or aggravated by the patient's employment and are, therefore, industrial in origin." (Id. at p. 9.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5410
Labor Code section 5410 continuing jurisdiction for new and further disability within five years of injury
Applicant's Petition to Reopen timely invoked continuing jurisdiction; new and further disability must be caused by original injury or compensable consequence.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 petition for reconsideration timing requirements
Appeals Board acted timely on petition for reconsideration within 60 days of case transmission.
From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code1 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:
WCAB Rule 10536
WCAB Rule 10536 invoking jurisdiction by petition setting forth facts for new and further disability
Petition must specifically detail facts establishing new and further disability.
From the decision · page 5Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) Rule 10536 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10536) provides, in relevant part, that "the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5410 shall be invoked by a petition setting forth specifically and in detail the facts relied upon to establish new and further disability."
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's trial testimony of increased symptoms and additional body parts affected
From the decision · page 6Applicant's alleged symptoms with respect to her left knee and body parts claimed as a compensable consequence of the original injury are reflected in both the trial testimony and in the medical record. Applicant's trial testimony indicates that following the finalization of her Award in 2021, she experienced an increase in symptoms, including clicking in the left knee and the knee giving way unexpectedly. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated December 16,
Medical records documenting musculoskeletal complaints and psychiatric symptoms
From the decision · page 7The corresponding records of applicant's PTP Koruon Daldalyan, M.D., reflect applicant's musculoskeletal complaints across multiple body parts, including lumbar, thoracic and cervical spine pain with corresponding reduction in range in motion and compromise in activities of daily living. (Ex. 4, Report of Koruon Daldalyan, dated December 28, 2023, at pp. 2-3, 5.) Dr. Daldalyan diagnosed "musculoskeletal injuries involving the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral hips, [and] bilateral knees," as well as "internal derangement of the left knee, status post surgical repair with reinjury," and depressive and anxiety disorders. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) Dr. Daldalyan opined that "some of these diagnoses are industrial in origin and are either initiated or aggravated by the patient's employment and are, therefore, industrial in origin." (Id. at p. 9.)
Lack of comprehensive medical-legal reporting on compensable consequence injuries
From the decision · page 8The WCJ's Report observes that despite amending her claim in 2023, applicant has not obtained comprehensive medical-legal reporting addressing whether she has sustained new and further disability to any alleged body parts beyond the left knee. (Report, at p. 5.) Although applicant now requests the issuance of additional panels of QMEs to address contested body parts, the WCJ states that applicant's lack of diligence in obtaining reporting responsive to the petition for new and further disability militates against such action. We acknowledge the WCJ's analysis in this regard and agree that the failure to undertake timely discovery is indeed relevant to any evaluation of good cause for development of the record.
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.