What the panel ordered
The WCAB panel affirmed the finding of no industrial injury and the take-nothing order, but deleted the finding that the claim was barred by post-termination provisions due to insufficient evidence of termination.
Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's ruling and findings that he did not sustain industrial injury and was barred by post-termination provisions, which was partially granted by 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 prevailedneck · arms · upper extremities · back · shoulders
Applicant did not present substantial medical evidence that the September 5, 2017 accident caused industrial injury, and the WCJ did not find applicant credible, so the claim was denied.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Ruling on Evidence, Findings of Fact and Order of April 26, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his neck, arms, upper extremities, back and shoulders while employed as a bus driver on September 5, 2017. The WCJ thus issued an order that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim. In finding that applicant did not sustain compensable industrial injury, the WCJ found that applicant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained industrial injury, given that the WCJ did not find applicant's testimony or the history given to panel qualified medical evaluator physical medical specialist Katherine Robb-Ramirez, M.D. to be credible, and Dr. Robb-Ramirez opined that applicant did not sustain compensable industrial injury. Independently, the WCJ found that applicant's claim was barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), finding that applicant did not report his injury until after he was given notice of termination.