ADJ12496855 — California WCAB decision

ADJ12496855 · May 9, 2022

Findings of Fact of February 25, 2021 rescinded; substituted finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury to low back, shoulders, and cervical spine on August 10, 2019; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and benefits determination.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Decision After Reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinding the WCJ's Findings of Fact and substituting a finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and determination of benefits by the WCJ.

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/COEApplicant prevailedlow back · shoulders · cervical spine

The Appeals Board found the preponderance of evidence, including testimony and medical reports, established that applicant sustained an industrial injury on August 10, 2019, despite the WCJ's contrary credibility findings.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant lifted a heavy air conditioning unit on August 10, 2019, while working for Pressure Profile Systems.

Favours Applicant prevailed

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's testimony corroborated by contemporaneous medical records and text messages to co-workers.

From the decision · page 1Applicant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. Applicant contends that the employer's testimony and medical reports justify a finding that applicant sustained an industrial injury as alleged, that the employer's testimony confirms the mechanism of injury described by applicant, that the medical reports likewise justify a finding of industrial injury, that applicant's testimony about his injury is corroborated by text messages to co-workers and contemporaneous medical records, and that even if applicant's evidence is "self-serving" as characterized by the WCJ, it is admissible, reliable, corroborated, and unimpeached.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Employer's testimony about lifting the air conditioning unit consistent with applicant's account of the mechanism of injury.

From the decision · page 2who testified as follows about the events of August 10, 2019: The witness texted the applicant to help with an air conditioning unit.[1] He had discussed it with the applicant the day before. Apparently some ceiling tiles hadn't been put in properly, and the company that was hired to do that didn't complete the job at the new location. The applicant volunteered to go in on Saturday morning to work on the ceiling tiles, but then the AC unit came in and the applicant agreed to come in and help the witness install it. [...] The witness had bought a large wall-mounted air conditioning unit. He

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Medical records from UCLA Harbor Medical Center confirming diagnosis and chronology of injury and treatment.

From the decision · page 9The history of injury later reported on May 5, 2020 by the PQME, Dr. Nissanoff, is largely the same in essential detail: applicant hurt himself while lifting the heavy air conditioner with Dr. Son on Saturday, August 10, 2019; the employer learned of applicant's claim of injury no later than Monday, August 12, 2019; and applicant sought treatment for it at an urgent care center on Tuesday, August 13, 2019. (Applicant's Exhibit 1.) About a week later, on August 21, 2019, applicant sought further treatment at UCLA Harbor Medical Center, whose records confirm the same chronology of injury.

ADJ12496855 · May 9, 2022

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