ADJ11111045 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was reviewed by the WCJ and the WCAB panel.

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 prevailedlumbar spine

The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and the evidence preponderates against a specific low back injury as the cause of Petitioner's symptoms. The medical opinions of QME Dr. Darakjian, supported by diagnostic testing and examination, found no objective evidence of lumbar injury causally related to the industrial accident, while Dr. Scheinberg's opinions were inconsistent and speculative.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. We further note that, while there is evidence of low back impairment, the evidence preponderates against a specific low back injury as the cause.

The facts that decided it

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 · Orthopedic Surgery

No objective findings of lumbar spine injury related to the industrial accident; MRI showed degenerative changes only; examination was unremarkable; no evidence of radiculopathy or nerve impingement; no ratable impairment of lumbar spine.

Dr. Darakjian's consistent and thorough examination and review of diagnostic tests found no evidence of industrial injury to the lumbar spine, supporting denial of compensability for lumbar injury.

From the decision · page 8Currently, this MRI scan does not show any acute findings that would indicate any industrially caused injury. The findings are all degenerative in nature. There is no disc herniation. There is no fracture. There is no evidence of nerve impingement to suggest any treatment or work disabling injury. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2.

PTPRejected · Orthopedic Surgery

Initially diagnosed lumbar myofascial pain and possible radiculopathy; later opined lumbar spine injury might be industrially related; opinions were inconsistent and speculative over time.

Dr. Scheinberg's opinions were migratory and speculative, lacking consistent support from diagnostic evidence, thus given less weight than Dr. Darakjian's consistent findings.

From the decision · page 13The second problem with the argument of the pending petition is that Petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with the diagnostic results. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2; Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2. Likewise, Dr. Scheinberg's speculation that Petitioner's lower back pain might be the compensable consequence of alerted posture or gait from her hip and knee injuries was falsified on examination. Defendant's Exhibit H: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/30/2019 pp. 5-6. And, furthermore, the later theory that Petitioner's hip pain was radicular pain from an industrially injured lower back did not survive examination and testing. Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

WCJ's credibility determinations

From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Diagnostic results inconsistent with Petitioner's testimony of lumbar injury

From the decision · page 13The second problem with the argument of the pending petition is that Petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with the diagnostic results. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2; Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2. Likewise, Dr. Scheinberg's speculation that Petitioner's lower back pain might be the compensable consequence of alerted posture or gait from her hip and knee injuries was falsified on examination. Defendant's Exhibit H: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/30/2019 pp. 5-6. And, furthermore, the later theory that Petitioner's hip pain was radicular pain from an industrially injured lower back did not survive examination and testing. Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2.

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Consistent and thorough medical examination and diagnostic testing by QME Dr. Darakjian

From the decision · page 8Currently, this MRI scan does not show any acute findings that would indicate any industrially caused injury. The findings are all degenerative in nature. There is no disc herniation. There is no fracture. There is no evidence of nerve impingement to suggest any treatment or work disabling injury. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2.

ADJ11111045 · August 12, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page