ADJ10981243 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is granted; final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and entire record.

Defendant seeks reconsideration of the WCJ Findings of Fact and Order issued October 4, 2024, which found injury including hypertension and denied apportionment for hypertension; WCAB grants reconsideration and defers final decision pending further review.

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.

ApportionmentRemandedhypertension

The WCJ found the apportionment evidence for hypertension failed to meet defendant's burden, but the WCAB granted reconsideration to further develop the record on apportionment.

From the decision · page 42. Whether the apportionment indicated by AME Dr. Hirsch as to hypertension constitutes substantial medical evidence.

Sanctions under Labor Code §5813Not reached

The WCJ found applicant's attorney entitled to reasonable attorney fees of 15% of permanent disability indemnity, but this issue is not addressed in the reconsideration order.

The facts that decided it

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

WCJ found injury causing and/or exacerbating hypertension based on Dr. Hirsch's medical opinion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding was the basis for the initial award and denial of apportionment, but was challenged on reconsideration.

From the decision · page 41. the applicant, born [], while employed on June 6, 2017, as a Retail Sales Associate Group No. 214, at Los Angeles, California, by Goodwill Industries of Southern California, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left knee, right knee, lumbar spine, dental, and causing and/or exacerbating hypertension.

Dr. Hirsch opined 67% apportionment of permanent disability for hypertension, but WCJ rejected apportionment evidence as insufficient.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact is central to the dispute over apportionment and the reconsideration grant.

From the decision · page 58. The apportionment evidence, as it relates to hypertension, as indicated by AME Dr. Hirsch, fails to meet defendant's burden. The applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award.

Applicant did not testify; matter was submitted on medical evidence only.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of testimony limited evidence evaluation, favoring defendant's challenge to injury finding.

From the decision · page 11In finding that applicant sustained injury causing and/or exacerbating hypertension, it is unclear as to whether the WCJ found applicant's orthopedic injuries caused an aggravation of applicant's pre-existing hypertension, or a temporary exacerbation of such condition. It is further unclear as to the extent to which, if any, the subsequent automobile accident and applicant's use of NSAIDS post-accident impacts the findings of the QME as to causation of injury. The existing evidence does not appear to indicate that any medical treatment or period of temporary disability occurred relating to applicant's claim of hypertension. Further, applicant did not testify at the trial, and the matter was submitted on the existing medical evidence.

ADJ10981243 · January 13, 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