What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's blood alcohol level was 320 mg/dL at 1:13 pm on injury date, indicating intoxication.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports intoxication defense if causation proven.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND
Applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) on December 22,
2022, claiming a specific injury on September 22, 2021 when he fell off a roof, while employed
by defendant as a handyman, to his brain, neck, head, shoulders and multiple body parts. Applicant
filed an Amended Application on March 29, 2023 (Amended Application) to add the body parts
psyche and teeth.
There is no dispute that applicant was seriously injured in his fall from the roof, including
sustaining a traumatic brain injury, and that the injury was industrial. (11/25/25 F&O; Defendant's
Exh. D, 3/3/23 Report by Neurologist Jan H. Merman, M.D., at pp 1, 4; Defendant's Exh. G
Excerpts from Scripps Mercy Hospital.) The dispute here centers on whether defendant has proven
the elements of the intoxication defense, including proving that applicant was intoxicated at the
time of injury and that his intoxication was a proximate or substantial cause of the injury.
The hospital records from the date of applicant's injury indicate that applicant told hospital
staff that "he had a couple of drinks" before he fell. (Defendant's Exh. G, at p. 2.) His blood alcohol
level at 1:13 pm on that date was 320 mg/dL. (Id. at pp.
Homeowner Kevin Crennan's testimony was excluded despite relevance to intoxication defense and estoppel.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Exclusion deprived parties and WCJ of relevant evidence on intoxication and estoppel, requiring remand.
From the decision · page 14Here, our review of the record reveals at least four evidentiary concerns that lead to our
conclusion that this matter must be returned to the trial level for further development of the record
on the issue of causation: the exclusion of Kevin Crennan's testimony; the lack of evidence from
witnesses to applicant's fall or from the ambulance that transported applicant to the hospital; the
failure to provide Dr. Grodan with applicant's complete medical records; and, the lack of testimony
from applicant about whether he suffered from dizziness or vertigo prior to his injury. These
concerns are discussed below.
Dr. Grodan was not provided with applicant's complete medical records pre-dating injury, limiting causation analysis.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Incomplete records undermine substantial evidence on causation, requiring further development.
From the decision · page 16The third evidentiary problem in this matter involves the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Grodan's
opinion to establish that intoxication was a proximate and substantial cause of injury, when Grodan
was not provided with applicant's complete medical records. To constitute substantial evidence
"... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be
speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it
must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls, CNA Ins. Co.
(2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)
Applicant did not testify about pre-injury vertigo or dizziness, relevant to causation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of testimony on pre-existing condition affects causation determination, requiring further testimony.
From the decision · page 17The last identified evidentiary problem in this matter is that there is no testimony from
applicant about his alleged vertigo prior to his injury. Despite the statement in Dr. Lee's deposition
that "the vertigo pre-existed date of injury" the record indicates that applicant was not asked and
thus did not testify about whether or how often he had experienced dizziness or vertigo prior to
the date of the accident. (Applicant's Exh. 2, at p. 34; 9/22/25 Minutes of Hearing, at pp. 5-6;
10/27/25 Minutes of Hearing, at pp. 2-5.) Upon return, applicant's testimony on this issue may be
needed, as it goes directly to the issue of causation.