What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on December 26, 2025 by the WCJ, which found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and neck on August 20, 2019. The WCAB panel denied the petition for reconsideration on April 27, 2026.
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.
The WCJ found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and neck supported by substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde, and credible applicant testimony consistent with medical reports. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no impeachable inconsistencies.
From the decision · page 10In sum, we believe there is substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE for the lumbar
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony consistent with medical reports of Dr. Graham and Dr. Vanderhyde.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and neck.
Medical opinions of QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde supporting injury causation to lumbar spine and neck.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provided substantial medical evidence for injury AOE/COE finding.
From the decision · page 8In this case, defendant alleges that the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE is not supported by substantial medical evidence because it was error to find applicant's testimony was credible. However, the WCJ indicated a finding of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and neck was supported by the documentary evidence of QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde. (Opinion on Decision, December 26, 2025, p. 3, § 1.) Applicant's testimony as to the injury was consistent with what he reported to Dr. Graham and Dr. Vanderhyde. (Joint Ex. 2, medical report of QME Dr. Graham dated June 15, 2023, p. 11; Joint Ex. 1, medical report of QME Dr. Graham dated June 15, 2022, p. 12; App. Exh. 2, PTP Initial Report of Dr. Vanderhyde, March 12, 2020, p. 1, "History of Injury.") Dr. Vanderhyde was of the opinion that applicant's symptomatology was the result of work-related injuries that occurred on August 24, 2019, during the course of his employment for defendant. (App. Exh. 2, PTP Initial Report of Dr. Vanderhyde, March 12, 2020, p. 4, "Causation.")
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.
Opined post-concussive syndrome with cervical and lumbar strain or sprain with radicular features; found headache and cognitive deficits non-industrial; deferred orthopedic issues to orthopedic PQME.
Dr. Wang doubted applicant's trustworthiness and opined neurological symptoms were non-industrial but deferred orthopedic causation to Dr. Graham.
From the decision · page 2Jonathan L. Wang M.D. is serving as a Qualified Medical Evaluator in the field of Neurology. Dr. Wang conducted an initial evaluation on April 14, 2020 and provided a report. After examination and review of the available records, Dr. Wang opined that Applicant had developed a post-concussive syndrome with cervical and lumbar strain or sprain with radicular features including headache and neck pain. Defendant's Exhibit A: Report of Jonathan Wang, M.D. 4/14/2020 p. 15. Dr. Wang opined that Applicant was not yet permanent and stationary and would benefit from therapy and other treatment for a traumatic head injury and neck injury as well as the passage of 12-14 months. He deferred further comment until after receipt and review of further records. Defendant's Exhibit A: Report of Jonathan Wang, M.D. 4/14/2020 p. 17.
Found cervical strain and lumbar strain industrial and AOE/COE; opined applicant not yet permanent and stationary for lumbar spine; deferred factual dispute about injury mechanism to trier of fact; gave 0% WPI for cervical spine.
Dr. Graham's orthopedic causation opinion was relied upon by the WCJ and WCAB despite applicant's credibility issues and factual disputes about injury mechanism.
From the decision · page 3Scott Graham, M.D. is serving as an Orthopedic PQME. He initially evaluated Applicant on June 15, 2022 and provided a report. Applicant was described as a "very poor historian and difficult to extract information from." Dr. Graham noted a pre-injury of hypertension, headaches and dental pain with reports during the period from August 24, 2021 to August 13, 2019 with a CT scan of Applicant's head on February 16, 2018 on which "no acute intracranial abnormalities were seen." Dr. Graham also noted Applicant's evaluation with Maurice Minervini, D.O. with Dr. Minervini opining that Applicant has sustained no ratable impairment, was no long in [need] of future medical care and releasing him to full duty work. Joint Exhibit 01: Report of Scott Graham, M.D. 6/15/2022 p. 2.
Opined applicant's symptomatology was the result of work-related injuries on August 24, 2019.
PTP opinion supported injury causation and was credited by the WCJ and WCAB.
From the decision · page 8In this case, defendant alleges that the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE is not supported by substantial medical evidence because it was error to find applicant's testimony was credible. However, the WCJ indicated a finding of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and neck was supported by the documentary evidence of QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde. (Opinion on Decision, December 26, 2025, p. 3, § 1.) Applicant's testimony as to the injury was consistent with what he reported to Dr. Graham and Dr. Vanderhyde. (Joint Ex. 2, medical report of QME Dr. Graham dated June 15, 2023, p. 11; Joint Ex. 1, medical report of QME Dr. Graham dated June 15, 2022, p. 12; App. Exh. 2, PTP Initial Report of Dr. Vanderhyde, March 12, 2020, p. 1, "History of Injury.") Dr. Vanderhyde was of the opinion that applicant's symptomatology was the result of work-related injuries that occurred on August 24, 2019, during the course of his employment for defendant. (App. Exh. 2, PTP Initial Report of Dr. Vanderhyde, March 12, 2020, p. 4, "Causation.")
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 3202.5
Preponderance of the evidence standard in California workers' compensation proceedings.
WCJ was free to find applicant's testimony more credible than contrary testimony without personalizing the controversy.
Lab. Code, 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249; LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644; Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Gideon) (1953) 41 Cal.2d 676; Maher v. Workers' Comp.
Broad concept of work-related injury; injury AOE/COE need only be a contributory cause.
The WCJ and WCAB applied the broad concept of injury AOE/COE and contributory cause standard to find injury compensable.
From the decision · page 7Although it is the employee's burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they sustained a compensable injury, the concept of what constitutes a work-related injury is broad. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297- 298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The determination of whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment is based on "criteria" that are "fluid," and "must therefore be decided on the facts peculiar to each case." (Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249 [53 Cal.Comp.Cases 157]; see also, LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 644, 651-652 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253].) If we look for a causal connection between the employment and the injury, such connection need not be the sole cause; it is sufficient if it is a contributory cause. (Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (Gideon) (1953) 41 Cal.2d 676, 680; Maher v. Workers' Comp.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony consistent with medical reports and supported by WCJ's credibility findings.
Medical reports of QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde supporting injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and neck.
From the decision · page 8In this case, defendant alleges that the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE is not supported by substantial medical evidence because it was error to find applicant's testimony was credible. However, the WCJ indicated a finding of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and neck was supported by the documentary evidence of QME Dr. Graham and PTP Dr. Vanderhyde. (Opinion on Decision, December 26, 2025, p. 3, § 1.) Applicant's testimony as to the injury was consistent with what he reported to Dr. Graham and Dr. Vanderhyde. (Joint Ex. 2, medical report of QME Dr. Graham dated June 15, 2023, p. 11; Joint Ex. 1, medical report of QME Dr. Graham dated June 15, 2022, p. 12; App. Exh. 2, PTP Initial Report of Dr. Vanderhyde, March 12, 2020, p. 1, "History of Injury.") Dr. Vanderhyde was of the opinion that applicant's symptomatology was the result of work-related injuries that occurred on August 24, 2019, during the course of his employment for defendant. (App. Exh. 2, PTP Initial Report of Dr. Vanderhyde, March 12, 2020, p. 4, "Causation.")
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.