SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ16170210 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ16170210 · April 29, 2024

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 2
District office: Sacramento

What the panel ordered

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award & Orders of February 15, 2024, which found industrial injury to applicant's abdomen hernia during employment.

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/COEApplicant prevailedabdomen

The WCJ's finding of industrial injury was supported by credible expert medical evidence from Dr. Klein that applicant's work duties contributed to the hernia aggravation, despite the absence of contemporaneous medical records documenting the hernia during employment.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact, Award & Orders of February 15, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending July 16, 2021 as a food worker, applicant sustained industrial injury to his abdomen in the form of a hernia.

The facts that decided it

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

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Applicant's work duties involved frequent heavy lifting and laborious effort as a baker's helper during the cumulative trauma period ending July 16, 2021.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This credible history supported the medical opinion that the work contributed to the hernia aggravation.

From the decision · page 1As explained below, we will deny the defendant's Petition. Applicant had a hernia condition prior to the employment at issue, having undergone surgery to repair an umbilical hernia on July 8, 2019. (May 16, 2023 report of Dr. Klein at p. 6; Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of July 18, 2024 trail at p. 6.) While incarcerated, applicant commenced the employment at issue at the bakery, beginning on April 1, 2021 and ending on July 16, 2021. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of January 18, 2024 trial at p. 6.) Applicant told Dr. Klein that his duties included "Hauling sacs of sugar, oats, and flour weighing 50 pounds, proportioning 55-gallon mixes involv[ing] frequent lifting and emptying, recurrent heavy lifting 25-30x/day with trips from storage rooms to individual machines. There was some assistance with dollies, but frequent handling and laborious effort required at end use." (May 16, 2023 report at p. 3.)

Dr. Klein opined it was medically reasonable and probable that the recurrent umbilical hernia aggravation resulted from the cumulative trauma industrial injury while performing usual work duties.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This expert opinion was relied upon as substantial evidence to establish industrial injury causation.

From the decision · page 2Dr. Klein opined in his initial report that it was "medically reasonable and probable that the recurrent umbilical hernia aggravation resulted from the cumulative trauma industrial injury while performing the usual and customary duties as a baker's helper." (May 13, 2023 report at p. 6.)

The WCJ found the history given to Dr. Klein regarding work duties credible, which is entitled to great weight in workers' compensation proceedings.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credibility determinations supported acceptance of the medical opinion and finding of industrial injury.

From the decision · page 3We note that the WCJ stated in his Opinion on Decision that the history given to Dr. Klein regarding the work duties was credible. As the Court of Appeal has held: