ADJ18246803 · August 28, 2026

The WCAB found that the WCJ's findings were based on an incorrect date of the stressful encounter and that the medical opinions lacked substantial evidence due to this error. The case was remanded for further development of the record with correct dates to obtain substantial medical opinions on causation.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 12, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury with defendant on an industrial basis. Applicant claimed that during the period from June 4, 2021 through September 23, 2021 she sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her circulatory system, including a stroke, causing impaired sleep and injury to her brain, left leg, and left arm arising out of and occurring in the course of employment as a security guard. Applicant contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order that applicant take nothing in this matter.

Applicant testified that the stressful encounter with her supervisor occurred on September 22, 2021, not September 21, 2021 as found by the WCJ.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This corrected date is critical to establishing the temporal proximity between the stressful encounter and the stroke, which is central to causation.

Asserted that the temporal proximity of the stroke to the stressful encounter with supervisor means the two are causally connected, but used an incorrect date. Needs to explain mechanism of injury with correct dates.

Used incorrect date for stressful encounter, so opinion lacks substantial evidence until corrected.

From the decision · page 7Zlotolow are aware of the correct date of applicant’s stressful encounter with her supervisor, they must apply that information to a detailed description of the mechanism of injury by explaining how and why the incident—and any other alleged causes of injury—did or did not contribute to the occurrence of applicant’s stroke on September 23, 2021. Dr. Zlotolow has asserted that the temporal proximity of the stroke to applicant’s stressful encounter with her supervisor means that the two are causally connected, but he used an incorrect date. Once he has the correct sequence of events, he can explain how or why it is medically probable that such an incident would cause physiological changes contributing to the occurrence of applicant’s stroke. Mere assertion of the causal relationship is insufficient without an explanation of the mechanism of injury. Similarly, Dr.

Determined it is not medically probable that alleged stress from employment caused the stroke, but did not have correct date or full nature of incident. Opinion lacks substantial evidence until corrected.

Did not correctly identify date and nature of stressful incident; relied on secondhand knowledge from Dr. Zlotolow's report.

From the decision · page 4However, this would actually have been after the stroke, which is well-documented to have occurred in the early morning hours of 9/23/2021. PTP Zlotolow further erroneously asserts that QME Engelberg did not mention any of the stress that the Applicant was under on the night of her stroke, specifically the roll call meeting. [Applicant's Exhibit 1 at p.4] However, QME Engelberg specifically described the incident on page 89 of his report dated 04/18/2025 [Joint Exhibit 3] and further mentioned "an altercation with her supervisor" as the questionable cause for the stroke [Joint Exhibit 3 at p. 94 3]. QME Engelberg has thoroughly reviewed the Applicant's medical history, described the pre-existing factors that were the probable cause for the stroke, and determined that it is not medically probable that alleged stress from employment with Defendant caused the Applicant's stroke.

Labor Code §§ 5903, 5952(d); Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604; Raymond Plastering v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 748

Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence, which requires an adequate history including all germane facts.

The WCAB found the medical opinions lacked substantial evidence due to incorrect dates and remanded for further development of the record.

From the decision · page 6Engelberg did refer to this incident twice, but both times he mischaracterized it as an “altercation,” which suggests that it was a two-way argument between applicant and her supervisor, and not the veiled unilateral threat from the supervisor described in applicant’s testimony. (Id., at pp. 90, 92.) Thus, it appears that Dr. Engelberg’s understanding of both the timing and nature of the incident that took place on September 22, 2021 is limited to that which Dr. Zlotolow reported. Any decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Substantial evidence must be based upon an adequate history that includes all germane facts. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 (Appeals Board en banc); Hegglin v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases

Applicant's testimony corrected the date of the stressful encounter with supervisor to September 22, 2021, not September 21, 2021 as found by the WCJ.