What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award of April 13, 2022, denying compensable industrial injury.
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 the applicant's testimony not credible and relied on defendant's credible testimony, rejecting the medical opinion due to inadequate history, thus no substantial evidence of industrial causation was established.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award1 of April 13, 2022, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain compensable industrial injury to her back, hands, hips, neck, face, legs and to her psyche while employed as an office manager during a cumulative period ending on March 31, 2017. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing on account of her workers' compensation claim.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant's HR director's credible testimony that applicant did not lift heavy objects.
Favours Defendant prevailed
WCJ found this credible and applicant's contrary testimony not credible, undermining the medical opinion's history.
From the decision · page 1Applicant testified that her job included lifting heavy objects including heavy reams of paper and 5-gallon water bottles. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of March 3, 2021 trial at p. 10). However, defendant's human resources director Wilhelmina Pagan testified that applicant did not lift heavy objects, including water bottles or heavy reams of paper as part of her employment. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 2, 2022 trial at pp.
Medical opinion by Dr. Wilker based on an erroneous or inadequate history.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Reports with inadequate history do not constitute substantial evidence for industrial causation.
From the decision · page 2While applicant urges us to adopt the medical opinions of Dr. Wilker, the WCJ has found the history given to Dr. Wilker to be not credible. Reports that contain an erroneous or inadequate history do not constitute substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ can rely. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 1993]; Zemke v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794, 801 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].) Accordingly, the applicant has not produced substantial evidence of industrial causation sufficient to meet her burden of proof.
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.
Found applicant sustained cervical and lumbar radiculitis from repetitive lifting.
Applicant contends WCJ erred in not finding industrial injury per Dr. Wilker's opinion.
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in not finding industrial injury to the cervical spine per the opinion of qualified medical evaluator orthopedist Moshe H. Wilker, M.D. Applicant's Petition does not raise error as to any of the other claimed body parts. We have received an Answer from defendant, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 644
Applicant has the burden of establishing reasonable probability of industrial causation.
Applied to deny compensability due to lack of substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 2"The applicant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of establishing the `reasonable probability of industrial causation'" (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253] citing McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credible testimony of defendant's HR director that applicant did not lift heavy objects including water bottles or heavy reams of paper.
From the decision · page 1Applicant testified that her job included lifting heavy objects including heavy reams of paper and 5-gallon water bottles. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of March 3, 2021 trial at p. 10). However, defendant's human resources director Wilhelmina Pagan testified that applicant did not lift heavy objects, including water bottles or heavy reams of paper as part of her employment. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of February 2, 2022 trial at pp.
Applicant's testimony found not credible by WCJ.
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.