ADJ8387927 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Petition for Reconsideration was denied by the WCAB panel decision on June 19, 2026.

Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued on March 3, 2026, which affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award. The petition was denied by the WCAB panel decision on June 19, 2026.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 3, 2026.

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/COEDefendant prevailedallergic rhinitis · irritable bowel syndrome · gastroesophageal reflux disease · dermatitis

Applicant failed to provide substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the listed conditions prior to the November 4, 2010 injury, including new medical reports which did not cure the evidentiary defect.

From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, seeks reconsideration of the Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) issued on March 3, 2026, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), wherein we affirmed the May 24, 2022 Findings of Fact & Award finding that there was no evidence of preexisting labor disabling impairment for the allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dermatitis (in the form of a rash).

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.

otherRejected

Report fails to outline functional work restrictions or demonstrate preexisting labor disabling impairment prior to November 4, 2010 injury.

Report does not cure evidentiary defect in applicant's claim for preexisting labor disabling impairment.

From the decision · page 4Applicant introduces new medical reports but provides no legal justification for failing to submit them during the trial proceedings. (See Lab. Code, § 5903.) She admits her former attorney returned Dr. Campagna's records to her two years ago, establishing her possession of these documents long before we issued the March 3, 2026 ODAR. Even if we admitted Dr. Campagna's and Dr. Ou's reports into evidence, they do not cure the evidentiary defect in applicant's SIBTF claim. Dr. Campagna's report fails to outline any functional work restrictions or demonstrate how applicant's rheumatological conditions impaired her earning capacity or created a competitive handicap prior to November 4, 2010. Similarly, Dr. Ou's March 17, 2026 report evaluates applicant's current visual impairments without providing a retroactive impairment rating or evidence of a labor disabling vision impairment preceding the November 4, 2010 injury. Consequently, the newly proffered medical evidence fails to constitute substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling permanent disability.

otherRejected

Report evaluates current visual impairments but does not provide retroactive impairment rating or evidence of preexisting labor disabling vision impairment.

Report does not cure evidentiary defect in applicant's claim for preexisting labor disabling impairment.

From the decision · page 4Applicant introduces new medical reports but provides no legal justification for failing to submit them during the trial proceedings. (See Lab. Code, § 5903.) She admits her former attorney returned Dr. Campagna's records to her two years ago, establishing her possession of these documents long before we issued the March 3, 2026 ODAR. Even if we admitted Dr. Campagna's and Dr. Ou's reports into evidence, they do not cure the evidentiary defect in applicant's SIBTF claim. Dr. Campagna's report fails to outline any functional work restrictions or demonstrate how applicant's rheumatological conditions impaired her earning capacity or created a competitive handicap prior to November 4, 2010. Similarly, Dr. Ou's March 17, 2026 report evaluates applicant's current visual impairments without providing a retroactive impairment rating or evidence of a labor disabling vision impairment preceding the November 4, 2010 injury. Consequently, the newly proffered medical evidence fails to constitute substantial medical evidence of preexisting labor disabling permanent disability.

ADJ8387927 · June 19, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page