ADJ10906751 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was denied by the Appeals Board adopting the WCJ's report.

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

ApportionmentApplicant prevailedleft lower extremity

The defendant did not meet its burden to establish apportionment to nonindustrial factors as the PQME's apportionment opinions were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 39.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that the apportionment opinions described in the medical-legal reporting of Dr. Galloni were couched in terms of possibility, rather than reasonable medical probability, and in any event, lacked an explanation of how and why the identified factors of apportionment were causing current disability. (Opinion on Decision, at pp.17-18.) Defendant's Petition contends that even if the physician's apportionment analysis is framed in words of conjecture, the report "must be construed in the proper context as statements of medical probability." (Petition, at p. 13:7.) However, we agree with the WCJ that to the extent that Dr. Galloni's apportionment opinions are merely conclusory and do not substantively discuss the medical basis for the physician's conclusions, they do not constitute substantial evidence. Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of establishing apportionment to nonindustrial factors as a result. (Report, at p. 19; see also Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 (Appeals Board en banc) (Escobedo) ["even where a medical report "addresses" the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The PQME Dr. Galloni's report was found to constitute substantial evidence supporting the findings.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report relying on Dr. Galloni's opinions, rejecting prior PQME Dr. Andrade's opinions.

From the decision · page 19right lower extremity, saw her condition deteriorate throughout the years. The applicant's testimony was credible and unrebutted in this regard. As the years had passed, the applicant became reliant upon her cane at almost all times "practically 24/7" as noted by the PQME. As early as August 18, 2021, the PQME opines that should treatment not be provided to the applicant, she would deteriorate and her disability would worsen. Such is the case. The conclusions that do not constitute substantial evidence are those of Dr. Andrade, not those of Dr. Galloni.

The defendant did not meet its burden to establish apportionment to nonindustrial factors.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The PQME's apportionment opinions were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence, leading to denial of apportionment.

From the decision · page 39.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that the apportionment opinions described in the medical-legal reporting of Dr. Galloni were couched in terms of possibility, rather than reasonable medical probability, and in any event, lacked an explanation of how and why the identified factors of apportionment were causing current disability. (Opinion on Decision, at pp.17-18.) Defendant's Petition contends that even if the physician's apportionment analysis is framed in words of conjecture, the report "must be construed in the proper context as statements of medical probability." (Petition, at p. 13:7.) However, we agree with the WCJ that to the extent that Dr. Galloni's apportionment opinions are merely conclusory and do not substantively discuss the medical basis for the physician's conclusions, they do not constitute substantial evidence. Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of establishing apportionment to nonindustrial factors as a result. (Report, at p. 19; see also Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 (Appeals Board en banc) (Escobedo) ["even where a medical report "addresses" the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding

The PQME found no cumulative trauma injury and the defendant's argument was denied as untimely and unsupported.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The PQME's clear finding of no CT injury was upheld as substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 20In terms of his finding no CT injury, his opinions also constitute substantial evidence. Preliminarily, however, it must be stated that the defendant had denied injury AOE/COE for the plead CT claim. They now, for the first time on appeal, seek to argue that one should be found by the PQME. The argument should be denied on this ground alone. Aside from that, however, the PQME is clear in finding no CT. Not only do his reports support such a conclusion, so does his testimony. During cross-examination, he testified that it was opinion that here was no CT prior to the specific injury.

The parties stipulated to the EDD payments and the EDD was entitled to reimbursement.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The stipulations and medical evidence supported reimbursement to the EDD.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604

A medical report must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability and not be speculative to constitute substantial evidence for apportionment.

Applied to reject conclusory apportionment opinions lacking explanation.

From the decision · page 39.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision observed that the apportionment opinions described in the medical-legal reporting of Dr. Galloni were couched in terms of possibility, rather than reasonable medical probability, and in any event, lacked an explanation of how and why the identified factors of apportionment were causing current disability. (Opinion on Decision, at pp.17-18.) Defendant's Petition contends that even if the physician's apportionment analysis is framed in words of conjecture, the report "must be construed in the proper context as statements of medical probability." (Petition, at p. 13:7.) However, we agree with the WCJ that to the extent that Dr. Galloni's apportionment opinions are merely conclusory and do not substantively discuss the medical basis for the physician's conclusions, they do not constitute substantial evidence. Accordingly, defendant has not met its burden of establishing apportionment to nonindustrial factors as a result. (Report, at p. 19; see also Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 (Appeals Board en banc) (Escobedo) ["even where a medical report "addresses" the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding

Labor Code section 5909

The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.

Applied to procedural posture of petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

ADJ10906751 · January 13, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page