ADJ12013613 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed September 29, 2025, denied by the Appeals Board on December 8, 2025.

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/COEDefendant prevailedheart · cardiovascular system · left knee

The Appeals Board found the medical opinion of PQME Dr. Olga Voroshilovsky, who reviewed all evidence including extensive medical records, to be substantial evidence supporting no industrial injury causation, while rejecting the consult Dr. Marvin Pietruszka's opinion for failing to consider the full medical record and relying on inaccurate history from the widow.

From the decision · page 11INJURY AOE/COE; CAUSATION; THE MEDICAL REPORTING OF PQME OLGA VOROSHILOVSKY, M.D. AND CONSULT MARVIN PIETRUSZKA, M.D.

The facts that decided it

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

PQME Dr. Olga Voroshilovsky reviewed over 1,000 pages of medical records and found no industrial injury causation for the decedent's heart and cardiovascular system or hypertension.

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.

QMERelied upon

Reviewed all evidence including extensive medical records and concluded no industrial injury causation for heart and cardiovascular system or hypertension; her opinion was found to be substantial evidence.

Her report reviewed over 1,000 pages of medical records and was supported after cross-examination, constituting substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 17There is no other conclusion for the court to reach. The only medical reports and conclusions that constitute substantial evidence are those of the PQME, Dr. Olga Voroshilovsky.

otherRejected

Consulted but failed to review extensive medical records and relied on inaccurate history from the widow; his opinion was rejected as not substantial evidence.

He did not review over 1,000 pages of medical records and relied on inaccurate history, failing to meet the standard of substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 12Further complicating Dr. Pietruszka's analysis is that he objects to the orthopedic apportionment provided, even though he is not an orthopedist. Moreover, he goes on to discuss and then make findings regarding the applicant's stressors at work and his psychiatric condition, despite not being a psychiatrist or psychologist. There is no reason for him to step outside his field of expertise to opine as he did. The grasping at straws is obvious, especially when he does not address the decedent's poorly-controlled hypertension, high cholesterol, hyperlipidemia, longstanding tobacco and alcohol abuse (at times 18 beers in a single night), medication non-compliance, and obesity. The 15 years of records tell a completely different story of the decedent's lifestyle and habits than does the version provided to Dr. Pietruszka. To completely ignore such a lengthy history of complications and treatment that is directly at issue in this case causes his opinions to fail the standard of substantial medical evidence. The applicant takes the position that Dr. Pietruszka reviewed all records, just not in their original form. That is a stretch.

ADJ12013613 · December 8, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page