What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; further proceedings to be determined after study.
Petition for Reconsideration granted to allow further study of factual and legal issues due to insufficient findings of fact by 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.
The WCJ's findings were found insufficient under Labor Code section 5903 because the treating physician's opinion constituted substantial medical evidence, requiring reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Based upon our initial review, it appears that the evidence in this case does not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903, in that the opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel, M.D., appears to constitute substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel constitutes substantial medical evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This evidence was found to be sufficient to challenge the WCJ's Findings of Fact and justify reconsideration under Labor Code section 5903.
From the decision · page 1Based upon our initial review, it appears that the evidence in this case does not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903, in that the opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel, M.D., appears to constitute substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).
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.
Opinion constitutes substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005).
The opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel was found to constitute substantial medical evidence, which the WCJ failed to properly consider.
From the decision · page 1Based upon our initial review, it appears that the evidence in this case does not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903, in that the opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel, M.D., appears to constitute substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5903
Labor Code section 5903
The evidence did not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903.
From the decision · page 1Based upon our initial review, it appears that the evidence in this case does not justify the Findings of Fact as required by Labor Code section 5903, in that the opinion of treating physician Michael Bazel, M.D., appears to constitute substantial medical evidence consistent with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).
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.