ADJ16445262 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is granted; WCJ's Joint Findings and Order of October 3, 2025 is rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of a WCJ's Joint Findings and Order of October 3, 2025, which found no industrial injury in two cases, with cumulative injury to the circulatory system deferred; the WCAB grants reconsideration, rescinds the WCJ's decision, and returns the matter for further development and decision.

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.

Cumulative traumaDeferredcirculatory system

The issue of cumulative injury to the circulatory system was deferred pending further development of the medical record.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of October 3, 2025, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her head, brain and neck while employed on June 28, 2022 as a licensed vocational nurse in case ADJ18616858. It was also found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the right arm, right wrist, right fingers, back, right shoulder, hips, legs, knees, feet, right ankle, brain, and psyche during a cumulative period from February 1, 2022 through July 7, 2022 in case ADJ16445262. However, the issue of cumulative injury to the circulatory system in case ADJ16445262 was deferred pending further development of the medical record. With regard to the allegation of cumulative injury to the psyche, it was found that applicant's claim was barred pursuant to Labor Code section 3208.3(d) because applicant's employment lasted less than the requisite six months. In finding no industrial injury in the specific injury case (ADJ18616858), the WCJ found that applicant's claim that she fell backwards and hit her head against the wall while at work was not credible.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant did not report the injury to her supervisor and gave inconsistent accounts regarding her failure to report.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This undermined the credibility of applicant's testimony, leading the WCJ to find no industrial injury.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that he did not find the applicant's testimony credible because of her failure to report the injury, giving inconsistent accounts regarding her motivations for not reporting the injury, and the fact that the fall was not reflected in contemporaneous medical records. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 6-12.) However, the Opinion on Decision does not discuss the testimony of applicant's husband, who stated that he was told of the fall soon after it supposedly took place, witnessed a bump that had not been there previously, and applied ointment on the bump and wound. In the Report, the WCJ states that he considered the husband's testimony, but does not directly comment on the husband's credibility or state why he did not rely on this testimony.

Applicant's husband's testimony about the fall and injury was not credited by the WCJ but requires further analysis.

Favours neutral

The WCAB found the record incomplete without a direct analysis of the husband's credibility, warranting remand for further development.

From the decision · page 4We believe that the record in this matter needs further development and analysis. The WCJ must make a more direct analysis of the applicant's husband's credibility and give more in-depth explanation regarding why he believed or disbelieved the applicant's husband's testimony, independent of any questions regarding the applicant's credibility. Additionally, it may be helpful for the resolution of this issue to allow Dr. Chodakiewitz to complete his medical reporting, as it appears that he was waiting on several diagnostic studies and a reevaluation of the applicant to conclude whether applicant sustained neurological injury within the meaning of Labor Code section 3208.1(a). (October 9, 2024 deposition at pp. 17-19, 57-58, 70-73; March 31, 2025 report at pp. 9-10.) The parties may also find it helpful to obtain evidence from any of applicant's co-

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.

QMERecord developed further · neurologist

Awaiting completion of medical reporting to conclude whether applicant sustained neurological injury within the meaning of Labor Code section 3208.1(a).

The WCAB noted that Dr. Chodakiewitz was waiting on diagnostic studies and reevaluation to complete his medical opinion on neurological injury.

From the decision · page 4We believe that the record in this matter needs further development and analysis. The WCJ must make a more direct analysis of the applicant's husband's credibility and give more in-depth explanation regarding why he believed or disbelieved the applicant's husband's testimony, independent of any questions regarding the applicant's credibility. Additionally, it may be helpful for the resolution of this issue to allow Dr. Chodakiewitz to complete his medical reporting, as it appears that he was waiting on several diagnostic studies and a reevaluation of the applicant to conclude whether applicant sustained neurological injury within the meaning of Labor Code section 3208.1(a). (October 9, 2024 deposition at pp. 17-19, 57-58, 70-73; March 31, 2025 report at pp. 9-10.) The parties may also find it helpful to obtain evidence from any of applicant's co-

QMERecord developed further · orthopedist

Concluded part-time employment over five months could not alone develop carpal tunnel syndrome; recommended further analysis of concurrent or prior employment and electro-diagnostic studies.

Dr. Raman provided opinion on cumulative injury and electro-diagnostic studies relevance.

From the decision · page 5With regard to the cumulative injury claim, while qualified medical evaluator orthopedist Hamid U. Raman, M.D. concluded that part-time employment over five months could not have on its own developed carpal tunnel syndrome, the parties and the WCJ may wish to analyze whether concurrent or prior employment, in addition to the employment at Pinegrove, contributed to a compensable cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5. Additionally, Dr. Hamid should provide a more in-depth discussion of the positive electro-diagnostic studies, and why they should be followed or discounted. (October 24, 2023 deposition at pp. 29-31.)

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours neutral

Applicant's husband's testimony about the fall and injury was considered but not credited by the WCJ; the WCAB found further analysis of his credibility necessary.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that he did not find the applicant's testimony credible because of her failure to report the injury, giving inconsistent accounts regarding her motivations for not reporting the injury, and the fact that the fall was not reflected in contemporaneous medical records. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 6-12.) However, the Opinion on Decision does not discuss the testimony of applicant's husband, who stated that he was told of the fall soon after it supposedly took place, witnessed a bump that had not been there previously, and applied ointment on the bump and wound. In the Report, the WCJ states that he considered the husband's testimony, but does not directly comment on the husband's credibility or state why he did not rely on this testimony.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's testimony was found not credible by the WCJ due to failure to report injury, inconsistent accounts, and lack of contemporaneous medical records.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that he did not find the applicant's testimony credible because of her failure to report the injury, giving inconsistent accounts regarding her motivations for not reporting the injury, and the fact that the fall was not reflected in contemporaneous medical records. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 6-12.) However, the Opinion on Decision does not discuss the testimony of applicant's husband, who stated that he was told of the fall soon after it supposedly took place, witnessed a bump that had not been there previously, and applied ointment on the bump and wound. In the Report, the WCJ states that he considered the husband's testimony, but does not directly comment on the husband's credibility or state why he did not rely on this testimony.

ADJ16445262 · January 5, 2026

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