ADJ10988642 — California WCAB decision

ADJ10988642 · March 19, 2026

WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Order except it reversed the finding that applicant's cumulative psyche injury claim was barred and reversed the finding that the left knee injury was industrial, finding it non-industrial per Dr. Hannani's report; further development of the record required for other claimed body parts.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Pomona

What the panel ordered

Petitions for reconsideration filed by both applicant and defendant; WCJ issued Findings and Order on January 30, 2025; WCAB issued Decision After Reconsideration affirming in part and amending in part the WCJ's findings.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold April 14, 2025.

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.

Psyche AOE/COEApplicant prevailedpsyche

The WCAB found that claim and issue preclusion do not bar the cumulative psyche injury claim because specific and cumulative injuries are distinct and cannot be merged or compensated together under the Labor Code.

From the decision · page 5compensable cumulative psyche injury was based upon the application of claim and/or issue preclusion, rather than an independent judgement on the merits of the evidence submitted in this claim. (See Report on Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, at pp. 3§ 5.) Accordingly, we consider whether either form of preclusion properly applies here.

The facts that decided it

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

The WCAB found that the cumulative psyche injury claim is not barred by claim or issue preclusion because specific and cumulative injuries are distinct and cannot be merged or compensated together under the Labor Code.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact led the WCAB to reverse the WCJ's finding that the cumulative psyche injury claim was barred, allowing the claim to proceed.

From the decision · page 5compensable cumulative psyche injury was based upon the application of claim and/or issue preclusion, rather than an independent judgement on the merits of the evidence submitted in this claim. (See Report on Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, at pp. 3§ 5.) Accordingly, we consider whether either form of preclusion properly applies here.

The medical reporting of Dr. Hannani was found to be substantial evidence that the left knee injury is non-industrial, leading to reversal of the WCJ's finding that it was industrial.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact led the WCAB to amend the Findings and Order to find the left knee injury non-industrial.

From the decision · page 1Both applicant and defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order (Amended) ("F&O") issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found applicant did not sustain a work-related cumulative trauma psyche injury, found that applicant's left knee injury was industrial in nature, and ordered further development of the record with regard to all other claimed body parts. Applicant asserted that the WCJ erred in finding no cumulative psyche injury based an adverse finding in a prior specific psyche injury claim. Defendant, by contrast, asserted that the WCJ erred because (1) the medical evidence shows the left knee injury was non-industrial; and (2) as to the other body parts, the medical evidence either does not require further development, or applicant failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing medical discovery.

The WCJ was in the best position to evaluate the lack of substantial medical evidence for other claimed body parts and found further development of the record was required.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact led the WCAB to affirm the WCJ's order for further development of the record for other claimed body parts.

From the decision · page 1Both applicant and defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order (Amended) ("F&O") issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found applicant did not sustain a work-related cumulative trauma psyche injury, found that applicant's left knee injury was industrial in nature, and ordered further development of the record with regard to all other claimed body parts. Applicant asserted that the WCJ erred in finding no cumulative psyche injury based an adverse finding in a prior specific psyche injury claim. Defendant, by contrast, asserted that the WCJ erred because (1) the medical evidence shows the left knee injury was non-industrial; and (2) as to the other body parts, the medical evidence either does not require further development, or applicant failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing medical discovery.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.

QMERelied upon

Found applicant's left knee injury to be non-industrial and his report was substantial evidence not requiring further development.

The WCAB relied on Dr. Hannani's medical reporting as substantial evidence to reverse the industrial nature finding of the left knee injury.

From the decision · page 1Both applicant and defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order (Amended) ("F&O") issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 30, 2025, wherein the WCJ found applicant did not sustain a work-related cumulative trauma psyche injury, found that applicant's left knee injury was industrial in nature, and ordered further development of the record with regard to all other claimed body parts. Applicant asserted that the WCJ erred in finding no cumulative psyche injury based an adverse finding in a prior specific psyche injury claim. Defendant, by contrast, asserted that the WCJ erred because (1) the medical evidence shows the left knee injury was non-industrial; and (2) as to the other body parts, the medical evidence either does not require further development, or applicant failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing medical discovery.

QMERelied upon

Report did not address the theory of injury articulated by applicant's primary treating physician regarding hernia exacerbation; further development of record required.

The WCJ found Dr. Gaskins' report insufficient to decide the issue due to lack of addressing the primary treating physician's theory of injury.

From the decision · page 7Defendant also appears to contend that there is in fact substantial evidence to render a decision, and therefore that further development of the record is unnecessary. However, we agree with the WCJ that the record shows a lack of substantial evidence with regard to the reporting of Dr. Gaskins and Dr. Pietruszka. As noted by the WCJ, Dr. Gaskins' PQME report does not address the theory of injury articulated by applicant's primary treating physician that the hernia was an exacerbation of a prior work-related injury, and the WCJ reasonably determined that Dr. Gaskins' opinion on that possibility was necessary to decide the question. (See Report on Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, at pp. 4§ 5.) Similarly, we cannot find fault with the WCJ's conclusion that further development of the record is also required with regard to applicant's

QMERelied upon

Did not review the QME report of Dr. Vanfossen; further development of the record required for internal injuries.

The WCJ found Dr. Pietruszka's report insufficient due to failure to review relevant QME report, necessitating further development.

From the decision · page 8claimed internal injuries because Dr. Pietruszka not review the QME report of Dr. Vanfossen. (Id. at pp. 5§ 6.) As noted above, the WCJ was in the best position here to evaluate the substantiality of the evidence, and we will not lightly set aside her judgement that it was insufficient to render a reasoned decision.

The rules the panel named

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

McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408

Substantial evidence must be based on reasonable medical probability and include reasoning behind the opinion, not just conclusions.

The WCAB applied this standard to evaluate the sufficiency of medical evidence and reports in the case.

From the decision · page 3DISCUSSION The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB a l s o has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) Additionally, any decision of the WCAB must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, 1 § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) In this regard, it has been long established that, in order to constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.

Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535

Claim and issue preclusion do not bar cumulative injury claims when specific and cumulative injuries are distinct under Labor Code sections 3208.1 and 5303.

The WCAB applied this legal standard to reject the bar of the cumulative psyche injury claim by claim or issue preclusion.

From the decision · page 5compensable cumulative psyche injury was based upon the application of claim and/or issue preclusion, rather than an independent judgement on the merits of the evidence submitted in this claim. (See Report on Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, at pp. 3§ 5.) Accordingly, we consider whether either form of preclusion properly applies here.

ADJ10988642 · March 19, 2026

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