What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration by defendant is denied, affirming the December 1, 2025 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision after Reconsideration.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 1, 2025 Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision after Reconsideration which rescinded the July 11, 2025 Findings and Order and held applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to right shoulder on February 1, 2023.
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 Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the right shoulder based on Dr. Retodo's report, applicant's deposition and trial testimony, and lack of rebuttal evidence from defendant.
From the decision · page 7In the instant matter, as noted in our prior December 1, 2025 O&O, Dr. Retodo completed an evaluation of the applicant on June 8, 2023, and reviewed extensive medical records in preparation for the drafting of his August 31, 2023 report. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2.) Within his report, Dr. Retodo noted that applicant "called her primary medical physician on the [the day of the February 1, 2023 injury] due to significant right shoulder pain" and also, per Dr. Retodo's summary, underwent an April 2, 2023 MRI study, wherein she was found to have "labral fraying and a supraspinatus tear injury[.]" (Id. at pp. 3, 13.) Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Paul Abeyta therefore "recommended physical therapy and possible surgery to the right shoulder." (Ibid.) Ultimately, based upon his evaluation of applicant and review of medicals, Dr. Retodo concluded that applicant sustained a "[s]pecific industrial [sprain/strain] injury to the right shoulder [on] February 1, 2023[.]" (Id. at p. 12.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Retodo's August 31, 2023 report concluded applicant sustained a specific industrial sprain/strain injury to the right shoulder on February 1, 2023.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Report provided substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to right shoulder, relied upon by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 7In the instant matter, as noted in our prior December 1, 2025 O&O, Dr. Retodo completed an evaluation of the applicant on June 8, 2023, and reviewed extensive medical records in preparation for the drafting of his August 31, 2023 report. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2.) Within his report, Dr. Retodo noted that applicant "called her primary medical physician on the [the day of the February 1, 2023 injury] due to significant right shoulder pain" and also, per Dr. Retodo's summary, underwent an April 2, 2023 MRI study, wherein she was found to have "labral fraying and a supraspinatus tear injury[.]" (Id. at pp. 3, 13.) Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Paul Abeyta therefore "recommended physical therapy and possible surgery to the right shoulder." (Ibid.) Ultimately, based upon his evaluation of applicant and review of medicals, Dr. Retodo concluded that applicant sustained a "[s]pecific industrial [sprain/strain] injury to the right shoulder [on] February 1, 2023[.]" (Id. at p. 12.)
Applicant's deposition and trial testimony described the injury event and symptoms consistent with right shoulder injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Testimony corroborated medical evidence and supported finding of injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 7In our own review of the evidentiary record, and based upon the totality of the evidence, including the transcript of applicant's May 28, 2024 deposition testimony (Exhibit X), and applicant's May 12, 2025 trial testimony (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), pp. 4-7), we conclude, as we did previously, that there exists substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the right shoulder.
Defendant provided no rebuttal evidence to challenge applicant's proof of injury AOE/COE.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of rebuttal evidence left applicant's proof unchallenged, supporting injury finding.
From the decision · page 8burden has been met, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide rebuttal evidence. No rebuttal evidence was provided by defendant here.
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.
Concluded applicant sustained a specific industrial sprain/strain injury to the right shoulder on February 1, 2023, based on evaluation and review of medical records including MRI showing labral fraying and supraspinatus tear.
Report provided substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to right shoulder.
From the decision · page 7In the instant matter, as noted in our prior December 1, 2025 O&O, Dr. Retodo completed an evaluation of the applicant on June 8, 2023, and reviewed extensive medical records in preparation for the drafting of his August 31, 2023 report. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2.) Within his report, Dr. Retodo noted that applicant "called her primary medical physician on the [the day of the February 1, 2023 injury] due to significant right shoulder pain" and also, per Dr. Retodo's summary, underwent an April 2, 2023 MRI study, wherein she was found to have "labral fraying and a supraspinatus tear injury[.]" (Id. at pp. 3, 13.) Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Paul Abeyta therefore "recommended physical therapy and possible surgery to the right shoulder." (Ibid.) Ultimately, based upon his evaluation of applicant and review of medicals, Dr. Retodo concluded that applicant sustained a "[s]pecific industrial [sprain/strain] injury to the right shoulder [on] February 1, 2023[.]" (Id. at p. 12.)
Provided a report dated February 8, 2023, submitted as evidence at trial.
Report was part of the evidentiary record supporting injury claim.
From the decision · page 4submitted as evidence, a report from primary treating physician (PTP), Dr. David Smolins, dated February 8, 2023. Defendant submitted as evidence, a printout of applicant's calendar from
Recommended physical therapy and possible surgery to the right shoulder based on MRI findings.
Report cited by Dr. Retodo as part of medical evidence.
From the decision · page 7In the instant matter, as noted in our prior December 1, 2025 O&O, Dr. Retodo completed an evaluation of the applicant on June 8, 2023, and reviewed extensive medical records in preparation for the drafting of his August 31, 2023 report. (Exhibit 1, pp. 1-2.) Within his report, Dr. Retodo noted that applicant "called her primary medical physician on the [the day of the February 1, 2023 injury] due to significant right shoulder pain" and also, per Dr. Retodo's summary, underwent an April 2, 2023 MRI study, wherein she was found to have "labral fraying and a supraspinatus tear injury[.]" (Id. at pp. 3, 13.) Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Paul Abeyta therefore "recommended physical therapy and possible surgery to the right shoulder." (Ibid.) Ultimately, based upon his evaluation of applicant and review of medicals, Dr. Retodo concluded that applicant sustained a "[s]pecific industrial [sprain/strain] injury to the right shoulder [on] February 1, 2023[.]" (Id. at p. 12.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692
Substantial medical evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value to establish industrial causation by reasonable probability.
Applied to evaluate Dr. Retodo's report and overall evidence for injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 6As the parties are well aware, substantial medical evidence is used to establish industrial causation and the applicant must establish industrial causation by a "reasonable probability." That burden, however, manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by "scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700- 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's May 28, 2024 deposition and May 12, 2025 trial testimony describing injury circumstances and symptoms.
From the decision · page 7In our own review of the evidentiary record, and based upon the totality of the evidence, including the transcript of applicant's May 28, 2024 deposition testimony (Exhibit X), and applicant's May 12, 2025 trial testimony (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH & SOE), pp. 4-7), we conclude, as we did previously, that there exists substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the right shoulder.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.