ADJ1405392 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant and denied by the Appeals Board panel.

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.

Substantial evidence / credibilityApplicant prevailedpsychiatric system · neurological system

The WCJ and Appeals Board found that Dr. Gonzalez's consultative medical reports were properly admitted and constituted substantial medical evidence based on adequate examination, history, and reasonable medical probability.

From the decision · page 8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

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.

otherRelied upon · neuropsychology

Provided consultative medical reports supporting permanent disability rating, combining neurological and psychiatric impairments additively consistent with Vigil standard.

Dr. Gonzalez was authorized by utilization review and was not retained solely to rebut a QME opinion; his reports were admitted and found substantial evidence by the WCJ and Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

PTPRelied upon

Primary treating physician who authorized Dr. Gonzalez's consultative reports and relied on them for impairment rating, work restrictions, causation, and future medical care.

Dr. Schweller authorized Dr. Gonzalez's reports and relied on them in his medical conclusions.

From the decision · page 3inapplicable, because Dr. Gonzalez was not retained to rebut a QME's opinion. (Report, at p. 3.) Rather, Dr. Gonzalez was retained to provide a treatment consultation, at the request of applicant's primary treating physician, Thomas A. Schweller, M.D. (4/26/23 Schweller Report, at p. 2.) Dr. Schweller then relied upon Dr. Gonzalez's reporting, in part, to reach his conclusions regarding the AMA impairment rating, work restrictions, causation/apportionment and future medical care.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The Board found the petition timely and denied it on the merits.

From the decision · page 1I. Former Labor Code section 59091 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Labor Code sections 4060, 4064, 4605, 4061, 5703

Medical reports by attending or consulting physicians are admissible unless specifically excluded; substantial evidence requires reasonable medical probability, adequate examination, and proper reasoning.

The Board admitted Dr. Gonzalez's reports and found them substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 2II. In Valdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., the California Supreme Court analyzed the admissibility of medical reports in workers' compensation proceedings and opined in pertinent part: [T]he comprehensive medical evaluation process set out in section 4060 et seq. for the purpose of resolving disputes over compensability does not limit the admissibility of medical reports.... Under section 4064, subdivision (d), "no party is prohibited from obtaining any medical evaluation or consultation at the party's own expense," and "[a]ll comprehensive medical evaluations obtained by any party shall be admissible in any proceeding before the appeals board..." except as provided in specified statutes. The Board is, in general, broadly authorized to consider "[r]eports of attending or examining physicians." (§ 5703, subd. (a).)

Labor Code section 4660.1(c)

Increased impairment rating for psychiatric disorder allowed if injury resulted from a violent act under Labor Code section 4660.1(c).

The Board agreed the applicant's injury from being crushed by a heavy LED screen constituted a violent act allowing increased rating.

ADJ1405392 · May 16, 2025

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