SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ11815084 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ11815084 · April 29, 2021

Findings of Fact rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 1
District office: Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Findings of Fact rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision.

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that applicant sustained industrial injury (leukemia); WCAB granted reconsideration to further study the issues.

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/COERemandedleukemia

Dr. Miller's medical opinion was not substantial evidence because it relied on an inapplicable legal presumption and was speculative; record requires further development.

From the decision · page 7This testimony is inconsistent with all of his previous statements that since he was not provided any material safety data sheets, he used the presumption in reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of applicant's cancer. Dr. Miller's application of the Labor Code section 3212.1 firefighter/police officer presumption is clear evidence that his conclusion regarding injury AOE/COE is based on an incorrect legal theory.

The facts that decided it

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

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Dr. Miller based his causation opinion on the firefighter/police officer presumption, which does not apply to applicant's occupation.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Reliance on an inapplicable legal presumption rendered the medical opinion not substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 7This testimony is inconsistent with all of his previous statements that since he was not provided any material safety data sheets, he used the presumption in reaching his conclusion regarding the cause of applicant's cancer. Dr. Miller's application of the Labor Code section 3212.1 firefighter/police officer presumption is clear evidence that his conclusion regarding injury AOE/COE is based on an incorrect legal theory.

Dr. Miller's causation opinion was speculative and not supported by substantial evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Speculation and lack of substantial evidence required further development of the record.

From the decision · page 7Further, in his October 2, 2018 report, Dr. Miller explained that although there is "a hypothetical mode of action to explain how inhaled formaldehyde might induce leukemia" that theory is debated and several studies dispute and "do not support the hypothesis." (App. Exh. 1, p. 19.) He then concluded that applicant's exposure to chemicals "could have contributed to her acute myeloid malignancy and the preceding appearance of an ANCA-vasculitis, which was a paraneoplastic finding." (App. Exh. 1, p. 20.) Dr. Miller's conclusion that applicant's chemical exposure "could have" been a cause of her cancer appears to be based on speculation, conjecture, or guess.

Dr. Miller deferred to a hematologist for causation due to the complexity of the case and his lack of board certification in hematology.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Deference to another specialty indicated the need for further medical evaluation.

From the decision · page 8Finally, at the October 8, 2019 deposition, Dr. Miller stated that because he is not a Board Certified Hematologist, he would defer the issue of causation to a hematologist. (App. Exh. 3, p. 33.)