What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ findings rescinded; matter remanded for further proceedings.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's July 28, 2023 findings that decedent sustained injury AOE/COE from Covid-19 resulting in death; WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded WCJ findings, and remanded for further proceedings.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/COERemandedCovid-19 infection
The WCAB found that the QME's opinion was speculative and did not establish substantial evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The WCJ's finding was rescinded and the case was remanded for further development of the medical record.
From the decision · page 5The issue we face in the instant case is whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the applicant sustained injury AOE/COE. On the record before us, substantial evidence does not support the finding that the injury occurred AOE/COE. QME Dr. Zagelbaum concluded that "If it can be confirmed and substantiated that the applicant's job created environmental conditions which causally contributed to his encountering exposure to the coronavirus which resulted in his developing COVID-19 infection in early December 2020 and contributed to his pre-existing long- term liver disease and triggered hospitalization several days later, then his death would be (at least 1%) work-related." (Ex. 5, p. 97, emphasis added.) However, Dr. Zagelbaum did not make any conclusion as to how likely it was that his job created environmental conditions which causally contributed to his encountering exposure to Covid-19. This conclusion does not support a finding of AOE/COE as it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess. (See Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 169.)