What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; prior decision rescinded and substituted with denial of reconsideration.
Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the August 12, 2024 decision by the Appeals Board, contending the wrong evidentiary record was reviewed. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and reissued a corrected decision denying reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 12, 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.
The Board found that the PQME Dr. Fonseca's report was substantial medical evidence, supported by the applicant's unrebutted testimony and consistent with the medical and factual record, rejecting defendant's contentions of speculation and internal inconsistency.
From the decision · page 3(1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [93 Cal.Rptr. 15, 480 P.2d 967, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 97].) Defendant fails to present evidence controverting the reasons or grounds for QME Dr. Allen Fonseca's reporting. As stated in the Report, the WCJ relied upon evidence in the form of QME Dr. Fonseca's reporting and applicant's uncontroverted testimony. (Report, p. 2.) Thus, the WCJ was presented with no good reason to conclude that Dr. Fonseca's opinion is unpersuasive--and we also conclude that it constitutes substantial medical evidence. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].)