ADJ15031118 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted, Findings and Order of February 10, 2025 rescinded, matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

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.

AOE/COERemandedlumbar spine

The WCJ excluded medical evidence from Dr. Shaw and Dr. Jones improperly, limiting the evidentiary record and barring meaningful review; the Appeals Board found the exclusion of Dr. Shaw's QME reports improper under Labor Code section 4062.3 and related statutes, requiring further proceedings to develop the record and properly consider the cumulative trauma injury claim.

From the decision · page 1wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) in case number ADJ15031118.

The facts that decided it

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

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.

QMERelied upon

Dr. Shaw's QME reports and deposition support that applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury during employment with Burchell Nursery.

Dr. Shaw's reports were improperly excluded by the WCJ despite being relevant medical evidence under Labor Code section 4062.3 and related statutes, and the Appeals Board found they constitute substantial evidence to establish the injury.

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that: 1. The WCJ erred and violated defendant's due process rights when he excluded from evidence the reports and deposition transcript of Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. James Shaw, which were properly obtained in case number ADJ6861827, against Dave Wilson Nursery.

PTPPartially credited

Reports of Dr. Jones were excluded by the WCJ for lack of disclosure but are relevant medical evidence.

The WCJ excluded Dr. Jones' reports for non-disclosure under Labor Code section 5502, but the Appeals Board noted the importance of medical evidence and the need for further development of the record.

From the decision · page 12. The WCJ erred when he excluded the reports of primary treating physician, Dr. Jeff Jones, from evidence, because defendant listed "Various" reports of applicant's primary treating physician from Boomerang Health as evidence for trial and there is no evidence that applicant or co-defendant were prejudiced by the failure to disclose the reports with specificity.

AMERejected

Dr. Broderick's opinion was found internally inconsistent and insufficient to support the WCJ's finding that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury.

The Appeals Board found Dr. Broderick's opinion internally inconsistent, unexplained, and inconsistent with the medical record, thus not substantial evidence to support denial of the injury claim.

From the decision · page 13. Dr. David Broderick's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding that Applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury during his employment with Burchell Nursery, because it is internally inconsistent, Dr. Broderick fails to explain his opinion, and Dr. Broderick's opinion is inconsistent with the medical record.

The rules the panel named

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

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

Substantial evidence standard for medical opinions in workers' compensation cases

The Appeals Board emphasized that medical opinions must be well-reasoned and based on adequate history and examination to constitute substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 7Here, AME Dr. Broderick, is addressing "contested medical issues arising from all injuries reported on one or more claim forms" and the records and reports from applicant's primary treating physician and other medical legal evaluators certainly seem relevant to the determination of the issues central to the matter before us. (Lab. Code, § 4062.3, 4064; Valdez, supra.) To be substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be well-reasoned, based on an adequate history and examination, and it must disclose a solid underlying basis for the opinion. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Bd. en banc); see also E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].)

Labor Code section 4062.3

Labor Code section 4062.3 regarding admissibility of medical evidence from QMEs

The Appeals Board found that Dr. Shaw's QME reports were improperly excluded and are admissible medical evidence relevant to the cumulative trauma injury claim.

From the decision · page 5The language of section 4062.3(a) is fairly expansive with respect to what medical records may be provided to the qualified medical evaluator. With respect to what medical records may be provided to a qualified medical evaluator, section 4062.3 provides in relevant part, as follows:

Labor Code section 5909

Labor Code section 5909 regarding timely action on petitions for reconsideration

The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition for reconsideration within 60 days of case transmission as required by section 5909(a).

From the decision · page 3Former Labor Code section1 5909 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:

ADJ15031118 · May 16, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page