Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312
WCJ credibility determinations given great weight absent evidence of considerable substantiality to reject them
Applied to uphold WCJ's credibility findings regarding applicant's testimony about limitations and activities
From the decision · page 2Moreover, we have given the WCJ’s credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. ( Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.
Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3th 775
AME opinion presumed persuasive due to parties' choice of evaluator for expertise and neutrality; no good reason presented to find unpersuasive
Applied to uphold reliance on AME Anderson's opinion of permanent total disability
From the decision · page 2The WCJ properly relied upon the opinion of the agreed medical evaluator (AME), who the parties presumably chose because of the AME’s expertise and neutrality. The WCJ was presented with no good reason to find the AME’s opinion unpersuasive, and we also find none. (See Power v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
WCAB Rule 10945
Petition for reconsideration must fairly state all material evidence and support evidentiary statements by specific references to the record
Defendant's petition failed to comply with citation requirements, undermining arguments regarding AME findings
From the decision · page 2Defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration fails to cite with specificity to the record. WCAB Rule 10945(a) provides, in relevant part: