E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on an adequate examination and history, not speculative, and must set forth reasoning to support conclusions.
The Board reviewed whether Dr. Klassen's reports met these criteria to constitute substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 4We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of the matter.
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must be
based on an adequate examination and history, it must not be speculative, and it must set forth
reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687];
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) "Medical
reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are
based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on
incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on
surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4
Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)
Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain,
constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd.
Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162
Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if known to be erroneous, based on facts no longer germane, inadequate histories, or incorrect legal theories; opinions based on speculation fail to support findings.
The Board considered whether Dr. Klassen's opinions were speculative or lacked a solid basis.
From the decision · page 4We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of the matter.
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must be
based on an adequate examination and history, it must not be speculative, and it must set forth
reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687];
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) "Medical
reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are
based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on
incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on
surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4
Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)
Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain,
constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd.