What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board rescinded the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.p. 3
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on June 16, 2021, by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial of reconsideration. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and ordered further review and mediation.
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The WCJ found no violation of Labor Code section 132a and the Appeals Board did not rule on the merits but rescinded the prior order and returned the matter for settlement consideration.
From the decision · page 1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on June 16, 2021, by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition. Applicant contends that he met his burden to establish a prima facie claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that defendant did not meet its burden to show a reasonable business necessity for its actions. We have received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ, recommending that we deny reconsideration. We issued an order granting reconsideration pending further review of the entire record. 1 Thereafter, the parties successfully participated in voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. Subsequently, the parties advised that a proposed settlement had been reached. In order to expedite review and approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, we will rescind the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level to consider the settlement. The assigned WCJ may conduct such further proceedings as is deemed appropriate.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ found that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding was the basis for the initial denial of the petition and the subsequent reconsideration request.
From the decision · page 1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on June 16, 2021, by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition. Applicant contends that he met his burden to establish a prima facie claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that defendant did not meet its burden to show a reasonable business necessity for its actions. We have received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ, recommending that we deny reconsideration. We issued an order granting reconsideration pending further review of the entire record. 1 Thereafter, the parties successfully participated in voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. Subsequently, the parties advised that a proposed settlement had been reached. In order to expedite review and approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, we will rescind the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level to consider the settlement. The assigned WCJ may conduct such further proceedings as is deemed appropriate.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 132a
Labor Code section 132a
The claim involved an alleged violation of Labor Code section 132a.
From the decision · page 1Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on June 16, 2021, by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a and ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his Labor Code section 132a petition. Applicant contends that he met his burden to establish a prima facie claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a and that defendant did not meet its burden to show a reasonable business necessity for its actions. We have received an Answer from defendant. We received a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) from the WCJ, recommending that we deny reconsideration. We issued an order granting reconsideration pending further review of the entire record. 1 Thereafter, the parties successfully participated in voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. Subsequently, the parties advised that a proposed settlement had been reached. In order to expedite review and approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, we will rescind the June 16, 2021 Findings and Order and return this matter to the trial level to consider the settlement. The assigned WCJ may conduct such further proceedings as is deemed appropriate.
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.