“A fighting force both consistent and compassionate on a scale’s a 5 all around.”
Rachael Hall
✦ Board-Certified Specialist in Workers’ Compensation Law — State Bar of California ✦
Bad ruling? We take your case to the next level — Reconsideration, Writ of Review, and beyond.
By Eman Yazdchi, Esq. · Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation Law
An unfavorable decision from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board does not have to be the final word on your claim. Pasadena workers — scientists at Caltech, engineers at JPL, healthcare professionals at Huntington Hospital, technology workers, and employees across every sector of the city's economy — have the right to appeal decisions that undervalue their disability, improperly apportion their injuries, or deny benefits they are legally entitled to receive. But the appeals process in California workers' compensation is governed by strict deadlines and technical requirements that leave no margin for error.
At Yazdchi Law P.C., board-certified specialist Eman Yazdchi handles workers' compensation appeals at every level, from Petitions for Reconsideration before the WCAB commissioners to Writs of Review before the California Court of Appeal. The appellate process requires a fundamentally different skill set than initial case handling — it demands the ability to analyze a trial record, identify legal and evidentiary errors, and present them in a written brief that persuades the reviewing body to grant relief.
Appeals in workers' compensation arise from specific circumstances. The most common situations we encounter with Pasadena clients include:
Excessive apportionment to non-industrial factors. This is the single most frequent basis for appeal in Pasadena claims. A WCAB judge at the Van Nuys board adopts a QME or AME report that attributes 50 or 60 percent of a worker's disability to "degeneration" or "pre-existing conditions," dramatically reducing the permanent disability award. If the medical report's apportionment analysis is conclusory — meaning it states a percentage without adequate medical reasoning to support it — the finding may not constitute substantial evidence and can be challenged on reconsideration. Under LC sections 4663 and 4664, apportionment must be based on reasonable medical probability, not speculation.
Denial of cumulative trauma claims. Pasadena's research and technology workers frequently develop cumulative injuries that insurance carriers contest. If a WCAB judge denies a cumulative trauma claim based on an inadequate medical evaluation — one that fails to consider the specific job duties, the duration of exposure, or the medical literature supporting industrial causation — reconsideration may be appropriate.
Errors in psychiatric injury analysis. Workers at Pasadena institutions who pursue stress-related claims under LC section 3208.3 sometimes face adverse rulings based on misapplication of the statutory requirements. If the judge incorrectly applies the "predominant cause" standard, fails to properly evaluate the competing causes of the psychiatric condition, or misapplies the six-month employment threshold, these are legal errors subject to appellate correction.
Procedural errors at hearing. Exclusion of relevant medical evidence, failure to consider supplemental reports, or improper limitation of cross-examination can all constitute grounds for reconsideration when they affect the outcome of the case.
Incorrect legal standards. If a judge applies the wrong burden of proof, misinterprets a statute, or fails to follow binding appellate precedent, the resulting decision can be reversed on reconsideration or writ.
Petition for Reconsideration (20-day deadline). This is the first level of appeal and must be filed within 20 days of service of the WCAB judge's final order, decision, or award. The petition is filed with the WCAB commissioners in San Francisco and must identify the specific grounds for reconsideration under LC section 5903 — that the WCAB acted without or in excess of its powers, that the order or decision was procured by fraud, that the evidence does not justify the findings, that the applicant has discovered new evidence, or that the findings do not support the order. The 20-day deadline is jurisdictional — miss it, and you lose the right to appeal regardless of the merits.
Answer from opposing party. The defense has 10 days to file an Answer to your Petition for Reconsideration. This document will argue that the judge's decision was correct and should be upheld.
Commissioner review and decision. The WCAB commissioners review the petition, the answer, and the trial record. They may grant reconsideration and issue a new decision, deny reconsideration, or grant reconsideration and return the case to the trial judge for further proceedings.
Petition for Removal (interlocutory orders). For non-final orders that cause significant prejudice — such as an order striking a key medical report or denying a continuance needed to obtain critical evidence — the remedy is a Petition for Removal under WCAB Rule 10843. Removal is discretionary and is granted only when the petitioner demonstrates significant prejudice or irreparable harm.
Writ of Review (45-day deadline). If the WCAB commissioners deny your Petition for Reconsideration or issue an adverse decision after granting it, you may seek judicial review by filing a Writ of Review with the California Court of Appeal under LC section 5950. The writ must be filed within 45 days. The Court of Appeal reviews the WCAB decision under a substantial evidence standard for factual findings and de novo for questions of law.
A JPL systems engineer receives a permanent disability award of 31 percent for cervical and lumbar spine conditions caused by 20 years of computer-intensive work. The judge adopts the defense QME's opinion apportioning 50 percent of the disability to "age-related degeneration." We file a Petition for Reconsideration arguing that the QME's apportionment is not substantial evidence because the report fails to explain the medical basis for the 50 percent figure, does not address the studies showing that degenerative findings are ubiquitous in the asymptomatic population, and does not account for the temporal relationship between the work activities and the onset of symptoms.
A Huntington Hospital laboratory technician has her chemical exposure claim denied at trial. The judge relied on the defense expert's opinion that exposure levels were below the PEL and therefore could not cause the diagnosed condition. We petition for reconsideration on the ground that the judge applied an incorrect legal standard — the PEL is a regulatory threshold, not a medical causation threshold, and the applicant's expert testimony on individual susceptibility and chronic low-dose effects constitutes substantial evidence of industrial causation that the judge improperly disregarded.
A Pasadena technology worker's stress claim is denied because the judge found that only 48 percent of the psychiatric injury was caused by employment, below the 51 percent "predominant cause" threshold. We identify errors in the judge's analysis — specifically, that the judge credited the defense evaluator's brief interview over the applicant's forensic psychiatrist's thorough eight-hour evaluation — and petition for reconsideration on the basis that the judge's finding is not supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed as a whole.
Appeals require a lawyer who can write persuasively, analyze records meticulously, and understand the legal standards that govern each level of review. Eman Yazdchi's board certification encompasses the full appellate process in workers' compensation — the examination tests knowledge of reconsideration standards, removal procedures, and appellate case law. This is not an area where generalist attorneys perform well, because the rules and deadlines are unforgiving.
We regularly file petitions with the WCAB commissioners and are familiar with the standards they apply when reviewing decisions from the Van Nuys WCAB, where Pasadena cases are heard.
Injured at work in Pasadena? Call (661) 273-1780
Tap to call →The 20-day deadline for filing a Petition for Reconsideration cannot be extended. If you have received an unfavorable decision from the WCAB in your Pasadena claim, contact Yazdchi Law P.C. immediately for a free consultation. We will review the decision, assess the grounds for appeal, and act quickly to protect your rights.
Ready to discuss your case? Schedule a free consultation.
Schedule Free ConsultationRead more testimonials →“A fighting force both consistent and compassionate on a scale’s a 5 all around.”