Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 230
Injury sustained as the result of authorized industrial medical treatment is itself industrial
Applied to determine whether applicant sustained injury as a result of mistakenly authorized left shoulder surgery
From the decision · page 5Injury sustained as the result of authorized industrial medical treatment is itself industrial, because it arises out of the original workplace injury.
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922
Medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and based on complete medical history to constitute substantial evidence
Applied to find AME's opinion on cumulative injury causation is not substantial evidence
From the decision · page 7Here, it is unclear whether the AME has fully considered applicant’s work history as described in his initial report of April 7, 2021. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion “must be predicated on reasonable medical probability.” ( E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Lab. Code, §§ 5701, 5906; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138
Appeals Board has discretionary authority to develop the record when medical record is not substantial evidence
Applied to return matter for development of the record regarding left shoulder surgery injury and cumulative trauma causation
From the decision · page 7The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate the issues. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; see McClune v. Workers’ Comp.