ADJ19436133 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Award amended to extend temporary partial disability through April 6, 2025; otherwise affirmed.

Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued June 27, 2025; the WCJ's Report recommended denial; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the Findings and Award.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedneck

PQME Dr. Konovalenko's well-reasoned medical opinion diagnosing myofascial pain syndrome and attributing the injury to cumulative industrial trauma was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck.

From the decision · page 6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

PQME Dr. Konovalenko diagnosed myofascial pain syndrome of the cervical spine due to cumulative industrial injury from 2020 through June 18, 2024.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This medical opinion was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck in favor of applicant.

From the decision · page 6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)

Treating physicians consistently found industrial work restrictions from June 19, 2024 through February 20, 2025.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported extension of temporary partial disability period in favor of applicant.

From the decision · page 6In addition, treater Dr. Jones congruently noted injury from "repetitive work." (Exhibit 10, Dr. Jeff Jones, July 17, 2024, PDF page 3; Dr. Jeff Jones Exhibits 9, 7, 6, and 4.) The treating physicians also support that applicant was not permanent and stationary but rather temporarily partially disabled by providing industrial work restrictions. (Exhibits 3 through 13.) The WCJ notes "the applicant provided credible testimony regarding his job duties that required him to drive on dirt roads that were rutted and filled with rocks and would cause him to bounce up and down

Defendant was afforded due process and opportunity to conduct discovery including depositions and supplemental reports despite discovery closure at mandatory settlement conference.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported denial of defendant's due process claim in favor of defendant.

From the decision · page 9Defendant was aware of a cumulative injury no later than issuance of PQME Dr. Konovalenko's November 12, 2024 report and likely earlier. Defendant has been afforded due process, including a meaningful opportunity to present evidence regarding the issues.

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.

QMERelied upon · Cumulative Trauma

Diagnosed myofascial pain syndrome of the cervical spine due to cumulative industrial injury from 2020 through June 18, 2024; applicant not yet permanent and stationary; work status deferred to primary treating physician.

Well-reasoned and supported by record, found substantial evidence by the Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)

PTPRelied upon

Consistently found industrial work restrictions from June 19, 2024 through February 20, 2025, supporting temporary partial disability.

Supporting evidence for extending temporary partial disability period.

From the decision · page 6In addition, treater Dr. Jones congruently noted injury from "repetitive work." (Exhibit 10, Dr. Jeff Jones, July 17, 2024, PDF page 3; Dr. Jeff Jones Exhibits 9, 7, 6, and 4.) The treating physicians also support that applicant was not permanent and stationary but rather temporarily partially disabled by providing industrial work restrictions. (Exhibits 3 through 13.) The WCJ notes "the applicant provided credible testimony regarding his job duties that required him to drive on dirt roads that were rutted and filled with rocks and would cause him to bounce up and down

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408

Medical evidence that industrial injury was reasonably probable constitutes substantial evidence for injury AOE/COE.

Applied to evaluate sufficiency of medical evidence for injury causation.

From the decision · page 6Medical evidence that industrial injury was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) Although the factual issue of the occurrence of the alleged incident is a determination for the WCJ, the issue of injury is a medical determination, which requires expert medical opinion. As the Court of Appeal explained in Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188]: "Where an issue is exclusively a matter of scientific medical knowledge, expert evidence is essential to sustain a [WCAB] finding; lay testimony or opinion in support of such a finding does not measure up to the standard of substantial evidence. Expert testimony is necessary where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences."

Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831

Expert medical opinion is essential to sustain a WCAB finding on medical issues.

Applied to require expert medical opinion for injury and disability findings.

From the decision · page 6Medical evidence that industrial injury was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) Although the factual issue of the occurrence of the alleged incident is a determination for the WCJ, the issue of injury is a medical determination, which requires expert medical opinion. As the Court of Appeal explained in Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188]: "Where an issue is exclusively a matter of scientific medical knowledge, expert evidence is essential to sustain a [WCAB] finding; lay testimony or opinion in support of such a finding does not measure up to the standard of substantial evidence. Expert testimony is necessary where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences."

Labor Code section 5502(d)(3)

Discovery evidence not disclosed before mandatory settlement conference is inadmissible unless due diligence shown.

Applied to deny defendant's due process claim regarding discovery closure.

From the decision · page 9PQME Dr. Konovalenko's deposition was not disclosed as an exhibit on the March 24, 2025 PTCS, despite defendant setting the deposition the day of the mandatory settlement conference. "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference." (Lab. Code, § 5502(d)(3).)

ADJ19436133 · October 6, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page