ADJ12380286 — California WCAB decision

ADJ12380286 · September 3, 2021

Findings and Order affirmed as to injury AOE/COE to neck and hands; issue of injury to lungs and psyche deferred; all other issues regarding neck and hands, including entitlement to benefits, deferred; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Long Beach

What the panel ordered

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order finding cumulative injury to applicant's neck and hands AOE/COE; WCAB granted reconsideration for further study and now issues its decision after reconsideration.

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.

Psyche AOE/COEDeferredlungs · psyche

No medical evidence submitted at trial regarding lungs or psyche; issues deferred for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 7FINDINGS OF FACT 1. applicant, age 54, while employed during the period from May 6, 2015, through May 6, 2016, at Los Angeles, California, as a legal assistant (occupation group number 112), by ROBERT HALF LEGAL, sustained injury, arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, to her neck and hands; the issue of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, to applicant's psyche and/or to her lungs is deferred.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. WCAB (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. WCAB (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (en banc)

Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence; medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, adequate examination, accurate history, and set forth reasoning.

Applied to determine that Dr. Watkin's opinions constitute substantial evidence for injury AOE/COE to neck and hands.

From the decision · page 4It is well established that any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To be substantial evidence a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and an accurate history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].) "Preponderance of the evidence" is defined by Labor Code section 3202.5 as the "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth. When weighing the evidence, the test is not the relative number of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence." (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.)

Lab. Code, §§ 3202.5, 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

Employee bears burden of proving injury AOE/COE by preponderance of the evidence.

Applied to applicant's burden to prove injury AOE/COE to neck and hands.

From the decision · page 4It is well established that any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To be substantial evidence a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and an accurate history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].) "Preponderance of the evidence" is defined by Labor Code section 3202.5 as the "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth. When weighing the evidence, the test is not the relative number of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence." (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.)

ADJ12380286 · September 3, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page