ADJ12149152 · June 4, 2021

The record lacked substantial medical evidence to support injury to the eyes; the QME Dr. Macy's report was found thorough and persuasive, concluding no evidence of injury to the eyes.

From the decision · page 4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.

No substantial medical evidence supported injury to the eyes as pled

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without substantial medical evidence, the claim for injury to the eyes could not be sustained

From the decision · page 4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.

QME Dr. Macy's report was thorough, analytical, and persuasive, finding no evidence of injury

Favours Defendant prevailed

The persuasive medical opinion negated the claim of injury to the eyes

From the decision · page 6Their conclusions were based solely on applicant's history. In contrast, the medical reporting of the QME Dr. Macy was thorough, complete and analytical. He conducted an examination and reported his findings. He reviewed the records of the prior providers. His expertise was confirmed during his deposition. He was the one evaluator who summed up the lack of findings on examination by reaching a stated conclusion on the issue. He could find no evidence of injury to the eyes. I found his conclusion to be persuasive.

Found no evidence of injury to the eyes after thorough examination and review of medical records; conclusions were persuasive and well reasoned.

The QME's report was thorough, complete, analytical, and supported by examination and record review; the WCJ found the opinion persuasive.

From the decision · page 6Their conclusions were based solely on applicant's history. In contrast, the medical reporting of the QME Dr. Macy was thorough, complete and analytical. He conducted an examination and reported his findings. He reviewed the records of the prior providers. His expertise was confirmed during his deposition. He was the one evaluator who summed up the lack of findings on examination by reaching a stated conclusion on the issue. He could find no evidence of injury to the eyes. I found his conclusion to be persuasive.

Lab. Code, 5705

Burden of proving industrial causation rests with applicant by preponderance of evidence

Applicant failed to meet burden to show injury to eyes by substantial evidence

From the decision · page 1The burden of proving industrial causation of injury rests with the applicant, and the applicant must carry this burden by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Moreover, all awards, orders and decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 280 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310].) To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion "must be predicated on reasonable medical probability." (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).)

Applicant did not testify at trial; record consisted of medical documents and QME deposition

From the decision · page 4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.

No objective findings of change to vision following incident; treating doctors accepted injury based solely on history

From the decision · page 6provided. As Petitioner does not point out any specific portions of the medical record he believes require development, my ability to respond is limited. I again however confirm my determination following review of the record submitted at trial that the applicant has had a thorough and complete medical evaluation of his eyes and opportunity to obtain treatment for his complaints. The record in this case does not include contradictory or inconsistent medical reporting. There is no doctor I am aware of who found any injury to applicant's eyes. I am not aware of any objective findings of change to his vision following the incident. The treating doctors have tried to address his complaints and provide whatever treatment they have available. All the medical reports were reasonable, but the treating doctors accepted the existence of an injury without any actual physical findings.