ADJ16754017 · September 28, 2026

Applicant’s credible testimony and QME Dr. Graham’s consistent mechanism of injury findings support injury AOE/COE despite defendant’s credibility challenges and lack of treatment.

From the decision · page 8II. As stated in the WCJ’s Opinion on Decision: Based on the credibility of the applicant, with due regard for her demeanor as a witness, together with the medical reporting and deposition testimony of Scott Graham, M.D., in his capacity as a PQME, Applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring within the course of employment to her lumbar spine and cervical spine. All other body parts are deferred with jurisdiction reserved.

Applicant credibly testified to the injury incident at work on November 15, 2021.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credibility of applicant's testimony was given great weight by WCJ and WCAB, supporting injury AOE/COE finding.

From the decision · page 10It is well established that any decision of the WCAB must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Here, the WCJ found that applicant credibly testified as to how her injury occurred. We have given the WCJ’s credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d 312 at pp. 318-319.) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ’s credibility determinations.

QME Dr. Graham found the mechanism of injury consistent with applicant's history and initially supported injury AOE/COE.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Medical opinion supported injury causation and was relied upon by WCJ and WCAB despite later modification.

From the decision · page 9Scott A. Graham, M.D., in the capacity of a PQME, wrote four reports and was deposed on one occasion. His reports and deposition all come to the same conclusion; he believes Applicant sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, and the mechanism of injury is consistent with what the Applicant has relayed to him. His reason for not finding the injury to be industrially-related is because Applicant did not receive medical treatment anytime after the industrial injury claimed, prior to seeing him, although he leaves it up to the trier of fact.

Initially found injury to lumbar and cervical spine consistent with applicant's history and mechanism of injury; later modified opinion due to lack of treatment but deferred to trier of fact on AOE/COE.

Dr. Graham found the mechanism of injury consistent with applicant's history and initially supported injury AOE/COE; later modified opinion due to lack of treatment but deferred to trier of fact on causation.

From the decision · page 2(Defendant’s Exhibit C.) Scott M. Graham, M.D., serves as panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in orthopedic surgery. Dr. Graham evaluated applicant on January 10, 2024 (Applicant’s Exhibit 1); issued supplemental reports on August 8, 2025 and October 21, 2025 (Applicant’s Exhibits 2, 3); and underwent deposition on June 15, 2026. (Applicant’s Exhibit 4.)

South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302

The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence.

Applicant met burden by credible testimony and consistent medical opinion.

From the decision · page 9(Report, pp. 2-3.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the “proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or ‘convincing.’” (McAllister v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) “That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty.” (Rosas v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].)

McAllister v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413

Proof of industrial causation must be reasonably probable, not certain or convincing.

Applicant met burden despite lack of treatment and defendant's credibility challenges.

From the decision · page 9(Report, pp. 2-3.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the “proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or ‘convincing.’” (McAllister v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) “That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty.” (Rosas v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].)

Applicant's credible testimony and demeanor observed by WCJ

From the decision · page 10It is well established that any decision of the WCAB must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Here, the WCJ found that applicant credibly testified as to how her injury occurred. We have given the WCJ’s credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d 312 at pp. 318-319.) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ’s credibility determinations.

QME Dr. Graham's consistent findings supporting injury mechanism

From the decision · page 9Scott A. Graham, M.D., in the capacity of a PQME, wrote four reports and was deposed on one occasion. His reports and deposition all come to the same conclusion; he believes Applicant sustained injury to her cervical and lumbar spine, and the mechanism of injury is consistent with what the Applicant has relayed to him. His reason for not finding the injury to be industrially-related is because Applicant did not receive medical treatment anytime after the industrial injury claimed, prior to seeing him, although he leaves it up to the trier of fact.