Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922
Medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history to constitute substantial medical evidence
The WCAB relied on this standard to affirm the PTP Dr. Mirza's report as substantial medical evidence and reject the PQME Dr. Campbell's report
From the decision · page 2For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we agree that the opinion of Dr. Mirza is
substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. To be considered substantial
evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager
Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71
Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413,
416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of
reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and
on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its
conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145
Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Labor Code 4628; 8 CCR 10682
LC 4628 and 8 CCR 10682 set forth required elements for a medical-legal report to be substantial medical evidence
The WCAB applied these to evaluate the reports of Dr. Mirza and Dr. Campbell
From the decision · page 7LC § 4628 and 8 CCR § 10682 (formerly 10606) set forth the following list of items
thatmust be included in a medical-legal report in order for it to be considered "Substantial
MedicalEvidence" upon which an evaluating physician may rely for his or her determination:
LC § 4628 (a):
Labor Code 4660.1
LC 4660.1 requires use of AMA Guides for permanent disability rating for injuries post 1/1/2013
The WCAB applied this standard to require proper analysis of impact on activities of daily living per AMA Guides for PD rating
From the decision · page 9For this date of injury post 1/1/2013, LC 4660.1 provides that the AMA Guides must
be used to calculate level of permanent disability. Essentially, the metrics of the AMA
Guides are driven by the impact of applicant's injury on his Activities of Daily Living
(ADLs). See Table 1-2 at page 4 of the AMA Guides which states:
Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274
Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate
The WCAB applied this standard to deny defendant's petition for removal
From the decision · page 2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155];
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that
substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann,
supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy
if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former
§ 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits
of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will
result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter
ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.