What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 10, 2023 Findings and Award is denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the August 10, 2023 Findings and Award denying the petition, which was reviewed and denied by the WCAB panel.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 10, 2022.
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 WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists/hands, elbows, knees, ankles/feet, and dental issues, but not to respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, psyche, or industrially-related diabetes, based on credible testimony and medical opinions including AME Dr. Angerman's report.
From the decision · page 16Applicant was observed at trial and found to be a credible witness. Based on Applicant's testimony and the opinions of AME Dr. Angerman, and Dr. Shames, the Court finds Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, elbows, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, and bilateral ankles. No injury is found to Applicant's respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, industrially related diabetes, or psyche.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the provision of the vocational rehabilitation report to AME Dr. Angerman was not improper because the AME requested the report and defendant did not timely object, so the AME report was not stricken.
The WCJ found total permanent disability based on the medical opinions of AME Dr. Angerman and vocational rehabilitation consultant Laura Wilson, and need for further medical treatment was also found.
From the decision · page 15AME Dr. Angerman's reporting determined that absent any non-industrial injury, Applicant's complaints to his back, bilateral shoulders, elbows, wrists and hands, knees, and ankles and feet are industrial in nature based upon his review of the medical record and examination of Applicant. (Exhibit 2, page 33).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's counsel informed defendant and the AME at the AME's prior deposition that a vocational rehabilitation report was pending and would be provided to the AME, and no timely objection was made by defendant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact led to the finding that the provision of the vocational rehabilitation report to the AME was not improper and the AME report was not stricken.
From the decision · page 9This is where the present matter and the facts of Trapero are distinguishable. In Trapero opposing counsel and the AME were provided the document without any prior indication of it with no agreement. In the present case, applicant's counsel at the AME's prior deposition informed defendant and the AME that he was procuring a vocational rehabilitation report which the doctor indicated he would like to review. No objection to the provision of the report was made, just as no objection was made to the provision of other reporting as discussed at the deposition. Defendant's prior counsel, having not objected to the provision of the report to the AME when it was discussed at the deposition effectively waived their right to later object to the provision of the report after it was obtained.
Applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists/hands, elbows, knees, ankles/feet, and dental issues, but not to respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, psyche, or industrially-related diabetes.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the finding of compensable injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 16Applicant was observed at trial and found to be a credible witness. Based on Applicant's testimony and the opinions of AME Dr. Angerman, and Dr. Shames, the Court finds Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, elbows, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, and bilateral ankles. No injury is found to Applicant's respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, industrially related diabetes, or psyche.
AME Dr. Angerman found no apportionment to non-industrial causation and agreed with vocational rehabilitation consultant Laura Wilson that the applicant is unable to compete in the open labor market.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding of total permanent disability and need for further medical treatment.
From the decision · page 15AME Dr. Angerman's reporting determined that absent any non-industrial injury, Applicant's complaints to his back, bilateral shoulders, elbows, wrists and hands, knees, and ankles and feet are industrial in nature based upon his review of the medical record and examination of Applicant. (Exhibit 2, page 33).
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.
Dr. Angerman found that the applicant sustained industrial injury to multiple body parts and that the slip and fall in 2011 was part of the overall continuous trauma injury, not a separate industrial event. He found no apportionment to non-industrial causation and agreed with vocational rehabilitation findings that the applicant is unable to compete in the open labor market.
Dr. Angerman's opinion was relied upon by the WCJ to find total permanent disability and industrial injury to multiple body parts.
From the decision · page 15AME Dr. Angerman's reporting determined that absent any non-industrial injury, Applicant's complaints to his back, bilateral shoulders, elbows, wrists and hands, knees, and ankles and feet are industrial in nature based upon his review of the medical record and examination of Applicant. (Exhibit 2, page 33).
Vocational rehabilitation report assessed the applicant's overall condition including orthopedic and non-orthopedic disability and concluded the applicant is unable to compete in the open labor market, which Dr. Angerman concurred with.
The vocational rehabilitation report was considered by Dr. Angerman and the WCJ to support the finding of total permanent disability.
Dr. Schames concurred with Dr. Angerman that there is no apportionment to non-industrial causation and supported the finding of industrial injury and need for future medical treatment.
Dr. Schames' opinion was relied upon to support the finding of industrial injury and need for future medical treatment.
From the decision · page 18Based on the reporting of Dr. Angerman and Dr. Schames, the Court finds that Applicant will require a provision of future medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury herein.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 11]
The agreed medical examiner's opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find it unpersuasive.
The parties selected Dr. Angerman as the AME, so his opinion was utilized unless not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 10In the Powers decision, the Court stated that "...we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive." Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 11]. As the parties selected Dr. Angerman to act as the AME in this matter, unless the reporting is not substantial evidence it should be utilized.
Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 86 Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221]
The WCJ as trier of fact has the power to choose from among conflicting medical reports those deemed most appropriate.
The WCJ chose to rely on Dr. Angerman's report despite conflicting evidence.
From the decision · page 10It is well settled that the WCJ as the trier of fact has the power to choose from among conflicting medical reports, those which he deems most appropriate (Jones v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 86 Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221]), and the relevant and considered opinion of one doctor may constitute substantial evidence even though inconsistent with other reports in the record. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 588, 592 [34 Cal.Comp.Cases 424]; Patterson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 916, 921 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 799].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant was observed at trial and found to be a credible witness.
From the decision · page 16Applicant was observed at trial and found to be a credible witness. Based on Applicant's testimony and the opinions of AME Dr. Angerman, and Dr. Shames, the Court finds Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, elbows, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, and bilateral ankles. No injury is found to Applicant's respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, industrially related diabetes, or psyche.
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.