What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the July 12, 2024 Findings and Award is DENIED.
Defendant filed a timely verified petition for reconsideration of the July 12, 2024 Findings and Award, which was denied by the WCAB panel on October 2, 2024.
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 prevailedright ribcage · neck · bilateral shoulders · right elbow · right hand/wrist · low back · right hip · right knee · right foot
The WCJ's credibility determinations were entitled to great weight and supported by substantial evidence, including consistent applicant testimony corroborated by witnesses and inconsistent defense witness testimony.
From the decision · page 3(Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) A WCJ's credibility determinations may be disturbed, but only where there is contrary evidence of considerable substantiality. (Id.) There was no such evidence here. Defendant argues applicant did not have specific knowledge of the work environment, but applicant's testimony was consistent with what was reported to Dr. Edwin Haronian and defense witnesses appeared to confirm this. (Opinion on Decision (OOD), July 12, 2024, p. 1.) As to questions regarding hiring and employment practices, however, defense witnesses appeared inconsistent and suspicious. (Id. at p. 2.) Since defendant provided no contrary evidence of considerable substantiality, we find no reason to disturb the WCJ's credibility findings.