ADJ13408105 · September 29, 2026

Applicant met her burden of proof with substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE on September 10, 2019; defendant failed to disprove the claim; surveillance video evidence was given no weight due to lack of time stamp and contradictory testimony.

From the decision · page 64, 11.) There was no evidence or testimony that the incident occurred on September 15, 2019. The fact that applicant mistakenly wrote the September 15 date on her Application and may have repeated that incorrect date to her doctors, is immaterial. Based on the full evidentiary record, we find that the date of injury was September 10, 2019, and that applicant’s Application is amended according to proof to claim injury on that date. The WCJ made no findings regarding applicant’s September 10, 2019 claim of injury, finding instead that applicant failed to prove that she was injured on September 15, 2019. The F&O did not address the adequacy of the medical evidence supporting applicant’s claim. Applicant contends that on the date of injury, she fell backwards off a stool and injured her back and neck. The QME found that she was injured in that way and that the injury was AOE/COE. (Joint Exh. 1, at pp. 31, 33.) Applicant’s treating physician similarly determined that applicant’s injuries were

Applicant's contemporaneous injury reports and statements consistently indicated the injury date as September 10, 2019, not September 15, 2019.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established the correct date of injury and supported amendment of the claim to conform to proof.

From the decision · page 64, 11.) There was no evidence or testimony that the incident occurred on September 15, 2019. The fact that applicant mistakenly wrote the September 15 date on her Application and may have repeated that incorrect date to her doctors, is immaterial. Based on the full evidentiary record, we find that the date of injury was September 10, 2019, and that applicant’s Application is amended according to proof to claim injury on that date. The WCJ made no findings regarding applicant’s September 10, 2019 claim of injury, finding instead that applicant failed to prove that she was injured on September 15, 2019. The F&O did not address the adequacy of the medical evidence supporting applicant’s claim. Applicant contends that on the date of injury, she fell backwards off a stool and injured her back and neck. The QME found that she was injured in that way and that the injury was AOE/COE. (Joint Exh. 1, at pp. 31, 33.) Applicant’s treating physician similarly determined that applicant’s injuries were

Medical opinions from QME Chau and treating physician McBride found the injury industrially caused and arising out of employment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

These uncontroverted medical opinions met the applicant's burden of proof for injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 7industrial. (Applicant’s Exh. 1, at p. 3.) Based on this uncontroverted medical evidence, we find that applicant met her burden of proof, demonstrating that substantial medical evidence supported her claim of injury and that the injury was AOE/COE. As discussed above, applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury was AOE/COE. (Clark, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5, 5705.) Here, applicant met that burden, and thus, the burden shifted to defendant to disprove applicant’s claim, by way of affirmative defenses to the injury. (Lab. Code, §§ 3600, 5705.) Defendant, however, failed to put on any adequate evidence to disprove applicant’s claim. We give no weight to the video evidence in Defendant’s Exhibit A, since the surveillance video was not time stamped, there was no testimony from anyone other than applicant who was present when the video was made, and no valid evidence was put on by defendant to contradict applicant’s testimony that the video did not depict the incident where she was injured. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the January 14, 2022 decision, substitute new findings as indicated below, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Defendant failed to present evidence to disprove the injury claim; surveillance video evidence was given no weight due to lack of time stamp and contradictory testimony.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of contrary evidence and unreliable video evidence supported finding in favor of applicant.

From the decision · page 7industrial. (Applicant’s Exh. 1, at p. 3.) Based on this uncontroverted medical evidence, we find that applicant met her burden of proof, demonstrating that substantial medical evidence supported her claim of injury and that the injury was AOE/COE. As discussed above, applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury was AOE/COE. (Clark, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5, 5705.) Here, applicant met that burden, and thus, the burden shifted to defendant to disprove applicant’s claim, by way of affirmative defenses to the injury. (Lab. Code, §§ 3600, 5705.) Defendant, however, failed to put on any adequate evidence to disprove applicant’s claim. We give no weight to the video evidence in Defendant’s Exhibit A, since the surveillance video was not time stamped, there was no testimony from anyone other than applicant who was present when the video was made, and no valid evidence was put on by defendant to contradict applicant’s testimony that the video did not depict the incident where she was injured. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the January 14, 2022 decision, substitute new findings as indicated below, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Diagnosed sprain and strain to lumbar, cervical and thoracic spine; injury arose out of and occurred during employment; injury date approximately September 10, 2019; incident in surveillance video did not cause injury but could have aggravated prior injury.

Based on examination, history, and medical records; concluded injury was industrially caused and arose out of employment.

From the decision · page 2Chau noted that applicant’s current medical concerns include pain in her neck, left arm, hand and shoulder; intermittent and constant severe pain in her midback that radiates into the left greater than right shoulder blade, feels bruised, and is aggravated by various movements; moderate to severe pain lower back pain, with tingling and numbness, which is aggravated by movement and by standing; intermittent severe pain in the shoulder blades; and abdominal pain, sleep issues, headaches, stress, anxiety, emotional difficulties, gastrointestinal disturbances, weight loss, weakness, and balance problems. (Joint Exh. 1, at pp. 6-7.) Applicant’s pain has increased over the last year, and she attributes it to the fall from the chair at work, since she had none of these issues prior to that fall. (Id. at p. 29.) Dr.

Concurred with QME that injuries were industrially caused; initially noted September 15, 2019 date but subsequent reports state September 10, 2019 injury date.

Consistent medical opinion supporting industrial causation of injury.

From the decision · page 3that date. (Joint Exh. 1, at p. 1; Joint Exh. 2, at pp. 7, 27.) He noted, however, that the medical records state that her injury occurred 1 ½ weeks prior to September 20, 2019, which would be approximately September 10, 2019. (Joint Exh. 1, at p. 25.) Dr. Chau reviewed defendant’s surveillance video (Defendant’s Exh. A) and stated that the incident in the video could not have caused applicant’s injuries, but the incident in the video could have aggravated applicant’s medical condition, if she had a prior injury. (Joint Exh. 2, at pp. 32- 34.) Applicant’s treating physician, Paul L. McBride, D.C., concurred with the QME that applicant’s injuries were industrially caused. (Applicant’s Exh. 1, at p. 3.) Although Dr. McBride’s first report includes the September 15, 2019 date, all of his subsequent progress reports state that applicant was injured on September 10, 2019. (Applicant’s Exhs.

Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5, 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; McAllister v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408

Injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment; burden of proof on employee by preponderance of evidence; medical evidence must be substantial and based on reasonable medical probability.

Applied to determine injury AOE/COE and burden of proof.

From the decision · page 4To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (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, 5705.) Whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the particular circumstances of the case. (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 353 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) “That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty.” (Rosas v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 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.

Surveillance video was not time stamped and contradicted applicant's testimony about the injury incident; no valid evidence contradicted applicant's testimony that the video did not depict the injury incident.

From the decision · page 7industrial. (Applicant’s Exh. 1, at p. 3.) Based on this uncontroverted medical evidence, we find that applicant met her burden of proof, demonstrating that substantial medical evidence supported her claim of injury and that the injury was AOE/COE. As discussed above, applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her injury was AOE/COE. (Clark, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5, 5705.) Here, applicant met that burden, and thus, the burden shifted to defendant to disprove applicant’s claim, by way of affirmative defenses to the injury. (Lab. Code, §§ 3600, 5705.) Defendant, however, failed to put on any adequate evidence to disprove applicant’s claim. We give no weight to the video evidence in Defendant’s Exhibit A, since the surveillance video was not time stamped, there was no testimony from anyone other than applicant who was present when the video was made, and no valid evidence was put on by defendant to contradict applicant’s testimony that the video did not depict the incident where she was injured. Accordingly, as our Decision After Reconsideration, we rescind the January 14, 2022 decision, substitute new findings as indicated below, and return this matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.