Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281
Employment is a contributing cause of injury to satisfy compensability
Employment as contributing cause satisfies injury causation requirement
From the decision · page 2Thus, both reporting physicians opined that applicant sustained industrial injury. While
both reporting physicians noted that applicant had conditions that pre-existed his cumulative
injury, all that is necessary to satisfy the requirement that a physical injury arose out of and in the
course of employment is that employment is a "contributing cause" of the injury. (Lamb v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Guerra v.
Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 195 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 270].) Defendant's
Petition notes that, at his deposition, Dr. Roberts ultimately opined that applicant's cumulative
injury did not contribute to his level of permanent disability. However, "The issue of the causation
of permanent disability, for purposes of apportionment, is distinct from the issue of the causation
of an injury. [Citation.] Thus, the percentage to which an applicant's injury is causally related to
his or her employment is not necessarily the same as the percentage to which an applicant's
permanent disability is causally related to his or her injury." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 [Appeals Bd. en banc].)
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611
Distinction between causation of injury and causation of permanent disability for apportionment
Causation of injury distinct from causation of permanent disability for apportionment
From the decision · page 2Thus, both reporting physicians opined that applicant sustained industrial injury. While
both reporting physicians noted that applicant had conditions that pre-existed his cumulative
injury, all that is necessary to satisfy the requirement that a physical injury arose out of and in the
course of employment is that employment is a "contributing cause" of the injury. (Lamb v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Guerra v.
Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 195 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 270].) Defendant's
Petition notes that, at his deposition, Dr. Roberts ultimately opined that applicant's cumulative
injury did not contribute to his level of permanent disability. However, "The issue of the causation
of permanent disability, for purposes of apportionment, is distinct from the issue of the causation
of an injury. [Citation.] Thus, the percentage to which an applicant's injury is causally related to
his or her employment is not necessarily the same as the percentage to which an applicant's
permanent disability is causally related to his or her injury." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 611 [Appeals Bd. en banc].)
Lab. Code, 4060, subd. (c)
QME's role includes opining on compensability of injury
QME's role to opine on injury causation is proper and required
From the decision · page 3Although we affirm the Findings of Fact, we are confused by the WCJ's statement in the
Opinion on Decision and in the Report that "Dr. Roberts stepped outside of his role in this matter
and opined as to injury arising out of and in the course of employment." (Opinion on Decision at
p. 1, Report at p. 5.) Not only was it proper for Dr. Roberts to opine on the compensability of the
injury, it was required, and was his statutorily defined role. (Lab. Code, § 4060, subd. (c).)
Generally, and especially in cases of cumulative injury, medical causation cannot be established
without corroborating expert medical opinion. (Peter Kiewit Sons v. Ind. Acc. Comm.
(McLaughlin) (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838-839 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].) Here, Dr. Roberts
properly opined regarding medical causation, and we relied upon his opinion in affirming the
WCJ's decision.