ADJ13458767 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification denied.

Applicant filed multiple Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification which were considered by the Appeals Board after the WCJ's Findings and Order denying the claimed injury.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petitions did not set forth sufficient verified facts to establish disqualification or reconsideration grounds, and the WCJ's report was adopted and incorporated.

From the decision · page 1While still represented by counsel, applicant filed two Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification on April 5, 2022. On April 8, 2022, applicant filed a third Petition for Reconsideration and Disqualification and a dismissal of her attorney. On May 16, 2022, applicant filed a request to file supplemental pleading. We accept that request pursuant to our authority. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Reconsideration and Disqualification and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration and applicant's request for disqualification of the WCJ.

The facts that decided it

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

Dr. Hoffman's QME report diagnosed applicant with a chronic psychotic illness and found employment events were not the predominant cause of psychiatric injury.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This medical opinion constituted substantial evidence relied upon to deny the claimed injury and petitions for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 5II FACTS On June 2, 2020, the applicant underwent psychiatric evaluation with psychiatric testing performed by QME, Micah Hoffman, M.D. The doctor reviewed the complaints and allegations made by the applicant as set forth in multiple e-mails. (Exhibit A, Dr. Hoffman report dated 6/29/20, pgs. 7 § 42). The doctor also reviewed the applicant's prior medical records and conducted psychiatric testing. (Id. at pgs. 42 § 54; 57 § 61.) Dr. Hoffman indicated that the applicant meets diagnostic criteria for an unspecified psychotic disorder with long-standing paranoia and delusions. (Id. At pg. 67.) In discussing causation, the doctor stated, "Within reasonable medical

Applicant's allegations of bias and discrimination against the WCJ were unsupported by verified facts and were largely based on subjective perceptions and interpretations.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of credible evidence for disqualification led to denial of petitions for reconsideration and disqualification.

From the decision · page 6III DISCUSSION In her Petition for Disqualification, the applicant alleges that the undersigned showed bias or the appearance of bias in preparing the Findings of Fact, Order and Opinion on Decision as shown by the vocabulary and symbols used and that the name "Debra Sandoval" is controversial and is associated with organized stalking and privacy invasion. (Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration/Disqualification, dated 4/2/22, pg. 3.) The applicant does not provide any evidence or even credible arguments to support her allegations. It appears that most of her allegations consist of the undersigned not finding in her favor as evidence of bias and discrimination. Many of the allegations applicant makes support Dr. Hoffman's diagnosis of a psychotic disorder with paranoia and delusions. For example, the applicant notes the first name of the assigned judge is the same as a person named "Deborah Lobo" allegedly discussed by the applicant

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's statements and interpretations lacked credibility and conflicted with evidence such as personnel file and performance evaluations.

From the decision · page 7The majority of the applicant's contentions imply that the undersigned erred by not accepting as truth not only all of applicant's statements but also her interpretation as to the meaning and motivation behind those statements. For example, the applicant claims that her employer intentionally utilized the words "flasher notes" in reference to notes needing to be locked in order to humiliate and harass her. (Id. at pg. 10.) The applicant reiterates all of the complaints that she has made against her employer which were contained within the e-mails reviewed by Dr. Hoffman in his QME report. (Id. at pgs. 10 § 28.) Many of Applicant's statements lack credibility on their face such as the examples cited above, but also some lack credibility due to a direct conflict in the evidence. For example, Applicant states that her exemplary performance evaluations led to salary increases through the same year of her employment. (Id. at pg. 10, #9.) However, the applicant's personnel file only contains one performance evaluation dated 8/2/19, wherein she was given an overall score of 1.57, which is between 1 Developing and 2 Competent. (Exhibit C, Personnel file, dated 10/15/19, pg. 26.)

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Dr. Hoffman's psychiatric testing and evaluation supported his diagnosis and causation opinion.

From the decision · page 5II FACTS On June 2, 2020, the applicant underwent psychiatric evaluation with psychiatric testing performed by QME, Micah Hoffman, M.D. The doctor reviewed the complaints and allegations made by the applicant as set forth in multiple e-mails. (Exhibit A, Dr. Hoffman report dated 6/29/20, pgs. 7 § 42). The doctor also reviewed the applicant's prior medical records and conducted psychiatric testing. (Id. at pgs. 42 § 54; 57 § 61.) Dr. Hoffman indicated that the applicant meets diagnostic criteria for an unspecified psychotic disorder with long-standing paranoia and delusions. (Id. At pg. 67.) In discussing causation, the doctor stated, "Within reasonable medical

ADJ13458767 · May 25, 2023

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