What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's own trial exhibits showed mileage paid exceeded mileage owed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the WCJ's finding that no additional mileage reimbursement was owed.
From the decision · page 2Defendant filed an answer.
We did not receive a Report and Recommendation from the WCJ.
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the WCJ correctly
found that applicant is not entitled to further reimbursement of medical mileage expenses in
ADJ1082010 or ADJ1958378. We also note that the penalties assessed by the WCJ have not been
challenged upon reconsideration. Therefore, we will affirm the WCJ's decision in its entirety.
Reviewing applicant's petition for reconsideration as paginated in the Electronic
Adjudication Management System (EAMS), applicant apparently alleges at pages five through
eight that she is entitled to additional mileage for injury-related medical treatment visits she made
to Fremont Urgent Care and to a Kaiser facility located in Milpitas. However, the WCJ explained
in his Opinion on Decision that he did add up mileage for the Kaiser and Fremont Urgent Care
visits, as set forth in applicant's exhibits 1 and 3 (admitted into evidence at trial on June 21, 2019).
For the injuries in both case numbers, the WCJ even concluded that defendant actually paid more
mileage than applicant was entitled to, and again this is according to applicant's own trial exhibits
1 and 3.
Applicant did not explain why new mileage logs and psychological counseling records were not produced earlier.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of explanation for late evidence submission led to rejection of new evidence and affirmation of WCJ's findings.
From the decision · page 3Here, contrary to Rule 10974, applicant does not explain why the mileage logs attached to
her petition for reconsideration could not reasonably have been discovered or produced before
submission of her case for decision. Applicant also does not explain why the attached mileage
logs should be considered true and correct, as opposed to the mileage reflected in the log of Kaiser
visits and Fremont Urgent Care visits presented by applicant herself at trial, in exhibits 1 and 3.
In the absence of any such explanations, applicant's presentation of new evidence of mileage in
her petition for reconsideration is not persuasive evidence sufficient to overturn the WCJ's
findings. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.)
No substantial medical evidence or finding of compensable psychiatric injury related to physical injuries.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without such evidence, no legal basis existed to award mileage for psychological counseling.
From the decision · page 3There is no stipulation or finding of record in the instant matter that applicant sustained an
industrial injury to her psyche. Likewise, there is no substantial medical evidence that she
sustained such an injury or that she required psychological counseling to cure or relieve the effects
of her physical injuries. We note that applicant was evaluated by Dr. Gupta for her neurological