ADJ10222709 · January 16, 2026

The WCJ failed to make findings on injury AOE/COE and improperly based denial solely on applicant's lack of credibility; the Appeals Board requires medical evidence for injury determination and remands for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 2FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 24, 2020, the matter proceeded to trial in ADJ10222709. In that case, applicant claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE while employed by UCLA as a hospital lab technician, during the period May 1, 2014 through November 11, 2015, to her bilateral upper extremities, bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, bilateral arms, neck, digestive system (stomach), fingers, both shoulders, elbows, internal, dental, nervous system, pulmonary and vision. The issues raised for determination were stated as follows: 1. Injury arising out of and in the course of employment. 2. Applicant attorney's motion to strike PQME Klassen is vigorously opposed by both defendants, including possible deposition unavailability. 3. Applicant's request for an additional panel in internal medicine is opposed by defendants. 4. Applicant's attorney objects to trial at this time and seeks further discovery.

The WCJ issued no findings on whether applicant sustained injury AOE/COE or on the need for additional medical discovery.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without findings on injury and medical record development, the decision lacks a proper basis and must be remanded.

From the decision · page 4In this case, the parties framed the issues of injury AOE/COE and whether applicant is entitled to an additional panel in internal medicine and other discovery for trial in ADJ10222709 and ADJ11429678. (Minutes of Hearing and Order of Consolidation, November 24, 2020, pp. 3:7- 12, 4:7-14.) However, the WCJ issued no findings as to any of these issues.

Applicant's testimony was found not credible by the WCJ due to demeanor and contradictory evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This credibility finding was the sole basis for denying injury but is insufficient without medical evidence.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 28, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) the testimony of applicant as a witness is found to be not credible, taking into account demeanor and presentation, and viewed in the context of contradictory or impeachment evidence; (2) the credibility of applicant and the persuasiveness of the evidence are questions of fact and, therefore, questions for the WCJ and the Appeals Board; (3) all evidence was admitted and evidence relying on applicant's credibility was given very little or no weight; and (4) all other issues are rendered moot, deferred and reserved by the finding that applicant's testimony lacked credibility.

Labor Code section 5953

Findings and conclusions of the appeals board on questions of fact are conclusive and final and not subject to review.

The WCJ's credibility finding is a question of fact but does not substitute for medical evidence on injury.

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION Labor Code section 59532 provides, in pertinent part:

Labor Code section 5313

The WCJ must make and file findings on all facts involved and provide a summary of evidence and reasons for determination within 30 days after submission.

The WCJ failed to make findings on injury and discovery issues, requiring remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 4Section 5313 provides: The appeals board or the workers' compensation judge shall, within 30 days after the case is submitted, make and file findings upon all facts involved in the controversy and an award, order, or decision stating the determination as to the rights of the parties. Together with the findings, decision, order or award there shall beserved upon all the parties to the proceedings a summary of the evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.

McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138

Before ordering augmentation of the medical record, the WCJ or Board must establish that specific medical opinions are deficient (inaccurate, inconsistent, or incomplete).

The WCJ did not address whether medical opinions were deficient, so remand is necessary to develop the record.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ may obtain "additional evidence, including medical evidence, at any time during the proceedings (citations) [but] [b]efore directing augmentation of the medical record... the WCJ or the Board must establish as a threshold matter that specific medical opinions are deficient, for example, that they are inaccurate, inconsistent or incomplete." (McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138, 141 (Appeals Board en banc).)

Applicant's testimony found not credible due to demeanor, contradictory evidence, incomplete histories, and impeachment.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued on December 28, 2021, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) the testimony of applicant as a witness is found to be not credible, taking into account demeanor and presentation, and viewed in the context of contradictory or impeachment evidence; (2) the credibility of applicant and the persuasiveness of the evidence are questions of fact and, therefore, questions for the WCJ and the Appeals Board; (3) all evidence was admitted and evidence relying on applicant's credibility was given very little or no weight; and (4) all other issues are rendered moot, deferred and reserved by the finding that applicant's testimony lacked credibility.