ADJ21161039 · September 4, 2026

The WCJ found substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE based on Dr. Nikakhtar's medical opinion, which was unrefuted and based on reasonable medical probability after an adequate examination and evaluation. Defendant failed to provide evidence to refute the medical history or opinion. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's findings and admitted lien claimants' exhibits into evidence.

From the decision · page 4The medical opinions of Dr. Nikakhtar constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE and were unrefuted. The WCJ provided the following analysis in the Opinion on Decision (OOD): A defendant will not be liable for medical treatment where there is no industrial injury. (Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1593 (Appeals Board en banc).) Where a lien claimant litigates the issue of entitlement to payment for industrially related medical treatment, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish industrial injury by a preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1592.)”

Dr. Nikakhtar’s medical opinion was based on reasonable medical probability after an adequate examination and evaluation, and was unrefuted by defendant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This medical opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the finding of injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 4The medical opinions of Dr. Nikakhtar constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE and were unrefuted. The WCJ provided the following analysis in the Opinion on Decision (OOD): A defendant will not be liable for medical treatment where there is no industrial injury. (Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1593 (Appeals Board en banc).) Where a lien claimant litigates the issue of entitlement to payment for industrially related medical treatment, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish industrial injury by a preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1592.)”

Defendant offered no evidence to refute the medical and injury histories in Dr. Nikakhtar’s reports, and no evidence was presented to support defendant’s oral contention that the histories were false or inaccurate.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of contrary evidence supported the credibility and weight of the medical opinion, favoring applicant.

From the decision · page 10Other than that oral contention by counsel, itself unsubstantiated by oral offers of proof, the record was entirely devoid of any substantial evidence supporting the contention. The medical and injury histories contained in the medical reporting (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) were unrefuted by any evidence presented by defendant or otherwise. Defendant also orally objected to Lien Claimant’s Exhibit 1 on the further basis that service upon Defendant was first made 4/17/26, after the occurrence of the Lien Conference. Lien Claimant Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were designated by Lien Claimants on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement. Evidence in the trial record demonstrated transmittal to defendant LWP Claims well prior to the Lien Conference. Defendant’s objections to Lien claimant Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were overruled and the exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Findings and Opinion, page 6) The court’s evidentiary rulings are not challenged by the petitioner. The only evidence submitted into the trial record on behalf of defendant was Exhibit A, a Notice of Denial of the claim.

Opined with reasonable medical probability that applicant suffered cumulative trauma injury from June 26, 2024 to June 26, 2025 during employment, entitling her to workers' compensation benefits.

Based on patient's historical information, physical examination, and nature of occupation; opinion was unrefuted and found substantial evidence by WCJ.

From the decision · page 4Dr. Nikakhtar opines “…based on the patient’s historical information, my own findings on physical examination and nature of her occupation, it is my professional opinion with a reasonable medical probability that the applicant indeed suffered cumulative trauma from June 26, 2024, to June 26, 2025 as a result of the gradually developing injuries that occurred while working at Dedicated Building Services…it is clearly evident and it is my professional opinion that the patient is entitled to worker’s [sic] compensation benefits…” (Lien Claimant Exhibit 1, page 22.)

Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence; medical opinions must be based on reasonable medical probability, adequate examination and history, and not be speculative.

The WCJ found Dr. Nikakhtar’s medical opinion met these standards and constituted substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 2II. Petitioner claims that the record lacks substantial medical evidence in support of a finding of injury AOE/COE. Decisions of 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, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Pursuant to section 5705, the “burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue.” (Lab. Code, § 5705.) “All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Lab. Code §3202.5.) “A lien claimant... has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim is industrial....” (Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

Defendant offered no evidence to refute the medical and injury histories in Dr. Nikakhtar's reports, and no evidence was presented to support defendant's oral contention that the histories were false or inaccurate.

From the decision · page 10Other than that oral contention by counsel, itself unsubstantiated by oral offers of proof, the record was entirely devoid of any substantial evidence supporting the contention. The medical and injury histories contained in the medical reporting (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) were unrefuted by any evidence presented by defendant or otherwise. Defendant also orally objected to Lien Claimant’s Exhibit 1 on the further basis that service upon Defendant was first made 4/17/26, after the occurrence of the Lien Conference. Lien Claimant Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were designated by Lien Claimants on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement. Evidence in the trial record demonstrated transmittal to defendant LWP Claims well prior to the Lien Conference. Defendant’s objections to Lien claimant Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were overruled and the exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Findings and Opinion, page 6) The court’s evidentiary rulings are not challenged by the petitioner. The only evidence submitted into the trial record on behalf of defendant was Exhibit A, a Notice of Denial of the claim.