ADJ11757597 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied.

Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration disputing findings and awards from 12/22/2025 decision; the WCJ report was reviewed and adopted by the Appeals Board.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedurological · erectile dysfunction

The court found the injury to urological and erectile dysfunction was supported by substantial medical evidence, specifically the QME report of Dr. Abdo Faddoul.

From the decision · page 17The Court's finding of injury to urological and erectile dysfunction is based on the medical report from QME Dr. Abdo Faddoul (Urologist) dated 12/13/2023 (Joint Exhibit "HH"). Defendant contends that based on the testimony set forth in Dr. Fadoul's deposition transcript dated 06/18/2025 (Joint Exhibit "EE") Dr. Fadoul's opinions are not based on substantial medical evidence because the doctor failed to perform any "objective" testing and that Dr. Faddoul did not review all of the medical records sent to him. These contentions lack merit.

Reconsideration / removal

The facts that decided it

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

Defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Jerome Peterson to treat applicant was found to be a bad faith action or tactic.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding justified the imposition of sanctions in favor of the applicant.

From the decision · page 5Defendant has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration wherein they dispute the Findings, Award and Order dated 05/27/2025 finding that defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Jerome Peterson, D.D.S./Guru Dentistry to treat applicant constitutes a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay pursuant to Labor Code section 5813 and Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, section 10421(a) and (b)(6); that Applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing at a weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties with jurisdiction reserved up to the maximum allowed pursuant to Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) less amounts previously paid by defendant; that applicant sustained injury to urological and erectile dysfunction; and that applicant's attorney has performed services of a reasonable value of 15% of the temporary disability.

Applicant sustained injury to urological and erectile dysfunction supported by QME Dr. Abdo Faddoul's report.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This medical evidence supported the finding of compensable injury to these body parts.

From the decision · page 17The Court's finding of injury to urological and erectile dysfunction is based on the medical report from QME Dr. Abdo Faddoul (Urologist) dated 12/13/2023 (Joint Exhibit "HH"). Defendant contends that based on the testimony set forth in Dr. Fadoul's deposition transcript dated 06/18/2025 (Joint Exhibit "EE") Dr. Fadoul's opinions are not based on substantial medical evidence because the doctor failed to perform any "objective" testing and that Dr. Faddoul did not review all of the medical records sent to him. These contentions lack merit.

ADJ11757597 · March 30, 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