What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued April 2, 2021, which found no injury AOE/COE to her eyes; the WCJ's decision was rescinded and the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.
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.
AOE/COERemandedeyes
The record lacked substantial evidence to determine if applicant's VKHD was caused by her employment; the matter was remanded for further development including evaluation by an immunologist or infectious disease specialist.
From the decision · page 5The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the record does not contain substantial evidence pertaining to a threshold issue. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; see McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) We are returning this matter to the WCJ for the parties to develop the record so that it contains substantial evidence to support a determination of whether applicant's VKHD constitutes an injury AOE/COE. Under the circumstances of this matter, we recommend the parties have applicant evaluated by an internal medicine infectious disease/immunology AME or in the alternative that the WCJ appoint a regular physician of that specialty. (Lab. Code, § 5701.)