What the panel ordered
Defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on February 26, 2026 is DENIEDp. 7
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on February 26, 2026, by the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ)
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.
Defendant failed to meet its burden of proving apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664 because the PQME reports of Drs. Saadat and Levey did not constitute substantial medical evidence
From the decision · page 6Accordingly, we affirm the WCJ’s decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME Dr. Saadat’s opinion on apportionment stayed the same throughout his medical reporting but never explains the how and why the prior injury and the L4 bilateral pars defects contributed or caused his current level of permanent disability