What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's trial testimony was not credible to support the claimed injury mechanism, undermining the medical evidence based on that mechanism.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ rejected injury AOE/COE due to lack of credible testimony supporting the injury mechanism, which was essential for medical opinions finding injury.
From the decision · page 2The case went to trial on the issue of injury AOE/COE and the undersigned
determined that the Applicant's testimony did not support the claimed
mechanism of injury. It was determined that the Applicant was not a credible
witness and that the medical evidence finding injury AOE/COE was not
substantial medical evidence because the claimed mechanism of injury was not
supported by the trial testimony.
Surveillance video did not show the applicant being struck at the time claimed in the incident report, contradicting the injury claim.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This contradicted the applicant's contemporaneous incident report and undermined the credibility of the injury claim.
From the decision · page 2The parties stipulated at trial that the in-house security cameras which filmed
the location where the alleged incident took place did not show the applicant
being struck in any manner by Arthur between the hours of 7 to 8 pm.
Emergency department medical records and ambulance records documented the injury history and diagnosis of back pain, lumbar strain, contusion, and muscle spasms despite lack of external trauma signs.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These medical records provide expert evidence supporting injury AOE/COE, which the WCAB found the WCJ improperly discounted.
From the decision · page 6Comm.
(McLaughlin) (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].) Emergency
Department records show that, applicant reported "a coworker accidentally turned into her while
carrying a Tupperware container [hitting] in the back causing the injury." (Palmdale Regional
Medical, Emergency Department records, at p. 13, applicant's Exhibit 10.) While a physical
examination revealed "no abrasion, ecchymosis or erythema" as the WCJ notes, the examining
physician, Amiram Shneiderman, M.D., diagnosed applicant with "[b]ack pain, lumbar strain,
contusion [i.e., bruise], [and] muscle spasms." (Palmdale Regional Medical, Emergency
Department records, at p. 13, applicant's Exhibit 10.) Moreover, ambulance records showed
evidence of redness in the thoracic area stating: "PT CHIEF COMPLAINT WAS BACK PAIN
X30 MINUTES. PT STATED THAT ANOTHER MCDONALDS EMPLOYEE HIT HER WITH
The WCAB rejected the WCJ's credibility determination and remanded for trial de novo to reconsider the injury issue with proper consideration of medical evidence and presumption of compensability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This legal authority and decision directs a new trial to properly evaluate the injury claim and medical evidence.
From the decision · page 7We acknowledge the WCJ's reservations regarding applicant's credibility. And while we
accord great weight to WCJs' findings on the credibility of witnesses, if they are supported by
"ample, credible evidence" or "substantial evidence," we exercise independent judgment as to
whether the evidence satisfies the required elements of the applicable law and may reject findings
of the WCJ upon our review of the record. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3
Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) The Appeals Board is empowered on reconsideration
to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to make its own credibility determinations, and to reject the
findings of the WCJ and enter its own findings on the basis of its review of the record. (Rubalcava
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 901, 908.)) Applicant's testimony at trial
appears consistent with the reports of the ambulance personnel (defendant's Exhibit B), the
emergency department records (applicant's Exhibit 10), and the statement written by applicant on
the date of injury. (Defendant's Exhibit A.) However, while we reject the WCJ's credibility
determination for the reasons stated above, we do not make our own credibility determination here
but instead will send this back to the presiding judge for reassignment to a new WCJ for a trial de
novo pursuant to our authority under section 53102.