ADJ11656888 · March 9, 2026

Applicant did not present substantial medical evidence tying the work incident to disability or need for medical treatment; medical opinions based on incomplete or speculative history were rejected.

From the decision · page 1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in these cases, we1 granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of August 13, 2021, wherein it was found "applicant did sustain injury to her right foot and bilateral knees on an industrial basis." Previously in this matter, in a Findings of Fact and Order of September 6, 2019, the WCJ had found industrial injury to the right foot. Defendant sought reconsideration of the September 6, 2019 decision and in an Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration of December 2, 2019, we found that the record as it then stood did not support a finding of industrial injury, but we sent the case back to the trial level to afford applicant the opportunity to procure and present substantial medical evidence of industrial injury.

No substantial medical evidence tying the tomato sauce can incident at work to disability or need for medical treatment.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for industrial causation; medical opinions based on speculation were rejected.

From the decision · page 1In order to further study the factual and legal issues in these cases, we1 granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Order of August 13, 2021, wherein it was found "applicant did sustain injury to her right foot and bilateral knees on an industrial basis." Previously in this matter, in a Findings of Fact and Order of September 6, 2019, the WCJ had found industrial injury to the right foot. Defendant sought reconsideration of the September 6, 2019 decision and in an Opinion and Decision after Reconsideration of December 2, 2019, we found that the record as it then stood did not support a finding of industrial injury, but we sent the case back to the trial level to afford applicant the opportunity to procure and present substantial medical evidence of industrial injury.

Initially found industrial injury based on applicant's history of dropping a can on her foot, but admitted in deposition that conclusion was speculative and not supported by medical records.

Report based on incomplete and inadequate history; deposition testimony showed speculation and lack of substantial evidence for industrial causation.

From the decision · page 3The parties returned to trial on May 4, 2021. The applicant did not present any new testimony tying the tomato sauce can incident to her subsequent disability or further explaining the circumstances or timing of the work incident to her later symptoms. Defendant introduced the reporting of qualified medical evaluator hematologist Noam Drazin, M.D. and the reporting and deposition testimony of qualified medical evaluator orthopedist Robert Fields, M.D. into the evidentiary record.

Le Vesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604; Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159; National Convenience Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kessler) (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 420; E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922

Substantial evidence must be relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, more than a mere scintilla; medical opinions must be based on reasonable medical probability and solid reasoning, not speculation or inadequate history.

The panel applied these standards to reject medical opinions based on incomplete history and speculation, finding no substantial evidence of industrial causation.

From the decision · page 6All findings of the WCAB must be based on substantial evidence. (Le Vesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) Substantial evidence has been described as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and must be more than a mere scintilla. (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].) There must be a solid and reasonable basis for a physician's final conclusion. It is not sufficient for the WCJ to blindly accept a medical opinion that lacks a solid underlying basis. (National Convenience Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kessler) (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 420, 427 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 783].) As the Court of Appeal wrote in E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp.

Applicant's testimony about the work incident and medical records showing no hematoma or lasting symptoms from the incident.

From the decision · page 2As we noted in our Opinion and Decision of December 2, 2019, applicant testified at the initial trial in this matter that while preparing lunch at work, a large can of tomato sauce fell on her right foot. She testified that she did not see a physician until the following week, when she saw Dr. Trujillo, her private primary care physician. According to applicant's testimony, Dr. Trujillo "immediately indicated she should go to the Cottage Hospital emergency room."