What the panel ordered
January 29, 2020 Findings of Fact and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further development of the record.
Petition for Reconsideration of WCJ's January 29, 2020 Finding of Fact and Order, previously granted for further study; matter now decided after reconsideration.
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 record was previously found inadequate to determine whether applicant had a pre-existing labor-disabling permanent disability; no further evidence was procured despite the order to develop the record, and the WCJ's decision lacked adequate explanation. The Appeals Board rescinded the decision and remanded for further development of the record.
From the decision · page 2Preliminarily, we note that the issue of applicant's entitlement to SIBTF benefits was initially set for trial on June 15, 2016. The parties were given until July 15, 2016 to submit points and authorities regarding the issue of SIBTF liability, whereupon the matter would be submitted. Points and authorities were timely submitted by applicant and by SIBTF. However, on August 10, 2016, the WCJ issued an Order Vacating Submission and Ordering Further Discovery. "Specifically," wrote the WCJ in his Order, "the parties are to elicit an opinion from the AME, Dr. Plesons, whether Applicant had a preexisting labor disabling permanent disability, prior to the industrial injury." At an August 17, 2016 hearing, it was noted that "SIBTF will write letter to doctor." Nevertheless, despite the fact that the WCJ found that further development of the record was necessary, the fact that defendant was designated to contact Dr. Plesons, and the fact that applicant carries the burden of proof on the issue {Brown v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 903, 915 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 627]), no further evidence was procured or admitted into the evidentiary record.