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.
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.
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.
The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration based on the record and reasons stated by the WCJ.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The court found defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Peterson to treat applicant constituted a bad faith action or tactic that is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, justifying sanctions.
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 is entitled to additional temporary disability for the period 01/10/2020 and continuing, with weekly rate to be adjusted by the parties.
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.
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.
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.
Found injury to urological and erectile dysfunction supported by symptoms despite lack of objective testing; assigned 12% WPI related to urinary symptoms affecting activities of daily living.
The court relied on Dr. Faddoul's medical report and deposition testimony to find substantial medical evidence supporting the injury to urological and erectile dysfunction.
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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 regarding petition for reconsideration timelines.
The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration as it was acted upon within the required timeframe.
From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 59091 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:
Labor Code section 5813
Labor Code section 5813 regarding sanctions for bad faith actions or tactics.
The court found defendant's revocation of authorization for Dr. Peterson to treat applicant constituted bad faith justifying sanctions.
Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)
Labor Code section 4656(c)(2) regarding temporary disability benefits.
Applicant entitled to additional temporary disability benefits for specified period.
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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Exclusion of medical reports of Dr. Cheri Lewis and Dr. Stephen Choi as evidence due to procedural objections.
From the decision · page 7The MOH indicates that defendant made a motion to have the medical reports of Dr. Cheri Lewis, D.D.S. dated 06/19/2023 and QME report of Dr. Stephen Choi dated 06/26/2020 be admitted as evidence as additional defense exhibits. Applicant attorney objected to the admission of Dr. Lewis' report on the grounds that Dr. Lewis' examination and report were obtained pursuant to Labor Code section 4050 and that both reports were not listed on defendant's exhibit sheet attached to the first amended pretrial conference statement in violation of Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). The objections were sustained and both reports were excluded as evidence.
Failure of Employment Development Department to file exhibits as ordered, leading to deferral of lien issue.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.