ADJ10652804 — California WCAB decision

ADJ10652804 · January 13, 2022

Findings and Orders issued by WCJ on May 10, 2021, are affirmed by WCAB on January 13, 2022, denying applicant's claims of injury to psyche, nervous system, sexual dysfunction, sleep disorder, low back, left knee, left ankle, and new and further disability.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Oakland

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant to challenge WCJ Findings and Orders denying injury and new and further disability; WCJ recommended denial of Petition; WCAB issued Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration affirming WCJ Findings and Orders.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold April 12, 2021.

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/COEDefendant prevailedback · left knee · left ankle · nervous system · psyche · sexual dysfunction · sleep disorder

The WCJ and WCAB found no substantial medical evidence supporting injury to psyche, nervous system, sexual dysfunction, sleep disorder, low back, left knee, or left ankle, and no new and further disability; Dr. Huffer's well-reasoned report was substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 4

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant's Petition to Reopen did not set forth specific facts or medical evidence supporting new and further disability.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of specific factual and medical evidence led to denial of reopening and new disability claims.

From the decision · page 3Based on our review of the record, including the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) ADJ file, we see that applicant's Petition to Reopen asserts that applicant "alleges his industrial injuries have worsened" and that he "asserts his right to have the matter re-opened due to his allegation of a new and further disability." However, the Petition to Reopen does not set forth specifically and/or in detail any of the facts relied upon as the basis for his petition. More importantly, the record contains no medical evidence to support applicant's assertion that his condition had worsened or that his disability had increased during the period from October 17, 2019, (the date of the initial Findings and Award) through April 23, 2020 (the date the Petition to Reopen was filed). For example, the medical records provided to Dr. Huffer for his August 24,

Dr. Huffer's October 1, 2020 report was well-reasoned, based on adequate history and examination, and found to be substantial evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This report was relied upon to deny applicant's claims of new injury and further disability.

From the decision · page 4Regarding the issue of whether Dr. Huffer's October 1, 2020 report is substantial evidence, it is well established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician, though inconsistent with other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence. (See Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) When a physician's report is well- reasoned, is based on an adequate history and examination, and sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions, the report constitutes substantial evidence. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

Applicant's testimony about the brief examination by Dr. Huffer was found less credible than Dr. Huffer's report stating a one-hour evaluation with interpreter assistance.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Credibility finding supported reliance on Dr. Huffer's report over applicant's contrary testimony.

From the decision · page 5Applicant is correct that the WCJ did not make a finding that applicant was not credible, but clearly the WCJ found Dr. Huffer's discussion of his examination of applicant to be more credible that applicant's testimony about the length of the examination. Based on our review of the record we see no reason to disturb the WCJ's decision.

ADJ10652804 · January 13, 2022

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