ADJ11319973 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Partial Findings and Notice of Further Proceedings issued March 18, 2025, which found injury compensable. The WCJ recommended denial of the Petition, and the Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's Report and denied reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 15, 2023.

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.

Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedright ankle · right lower extremity

The WCJ and Appeals Board found Dr. Haronian to be the primary treating physician and his reports admissible, rejecting defendant's objections that he was not the PTP and that his reports should be stricken.

From the decision · page 10On March 18, 2025, the undersigned WCJ issued Partial Findings and a Notice of Further Proceedings. The undersigned WCJ found the injury compensable and reserved on all other issues including but not limited to retroactive temporary disability indemnity and nature and extent. It is from the finding of compensability that Defendant seeks relief. DISCUSSION: EDWIN HARONIAN, M.D. IS THE PRIMARY TREATING PHYSICIAN

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant designated Dr. Edwin Haronian as his primary treating physician on July 23, 2018.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This designation established Dr. Haronian's status as PTP, making his medical reports admissible and persuasive for injury causation.

From the decision · page 3On May 2, 2018, defendant denied applicant's claim. (Defendant Exhibit A). On July 26, 2018, applicant designated Edwin Haronian, M.D., as his primary treating physician. (Applicant Exhibit 39.) Dr. Haronian saw applicant on August 1, 2018, and in his initial report states, "remaining respectful to the opinions of the QME, it is my opinion that there is a component of industrial connectivity to the patient's ankle complaints and apportionment should be discussed once the patient reaches maximum medical improvement. (Applicant Exhibit 1, Edwin Haronian, M.D., August 1, 2018, page 13.) Dr. Haronian was deposed on November 5, 2019, and further explained his opinion finding industrial injury. (Applicant Exhibit 36, Deposition, November 5, 2019.) PQME Dr. Ganjianpour was deposed on April 3, 2020, and did not change his opinions. (Defendant Exhibit C, page 8, lines 13 to 18.) Both Dr. Haronian and PQME Dr.

The WCJ found Dr. Haronian to be the primary treating physician and admitted his reports into evidence without objection at the January 7, 2025 trial.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This finding supported the admission and reliance on Dr. Haronian's medical opinions for the injury determination.

From the decision · page 4On January 7, 2025, the case was again tried and included as issue number 10 "[w]hether the medical reporting and deposition of Dr. Haronian are admissible in evidence. Applicant alleges Edwin Haronian is the PTP, and defendant claims he does not meet the criteria to be a PTP." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 7, 2025, page 3, lines 2 to 4.) Dr. Haronian's reporting and deposition were all admitted into evidence without objection as Applicant's Exhibits 2, 36, 40, 41, 42, as was a July 23, 2018, designation of treater letter to Dr. Haronian as Applicant Exhibit 39. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 7, 2025, page 3, lines 6 to 20.)

The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that Dr. Haronian's opinions were persuasive and substantial evidence of injury arising out of employment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This endorsement by the Appeals Board was key to denying the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and affirming compensability.

From the decision · page 7Here for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we discern no merit in defendant's Petition. We agree with the WCJ as stated in the Partial Findings that the opinions of Dr. Haronian are persuasive:

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code 3600

An injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment to be compensable.

The Appeals Board applied this standard to find the injury compensable based on medical evidence supporting industrial causation.

From the decision · page 7To be compensable, an injury must arise out of and occur in the course of employment. (Lab. Code, § 3600.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5, 5705.) Medical evidence that industrial causation was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) We observe, moreover, it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)

Labor Code 5703(a)(1), 4064(d)

The Appeals Board is broadly authorized to consider reports of attending or examining physicians, including those obtained at the employee's own expense if the physician is the primary treating physician.

The Board applied these statutes to admit Dr. Haronian's reports and reject defendant's motion to strike.

From the decision · page 7Generally, the Appeals Board is broadly authorized to consider the reports of attending or examining physicians. (Lab. Code, § 5703(a)(1); Valdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 1231, 1239 [78 Cal. Comp. Cases 1209] (Valdez).) The weight accorded the evidence, including the weighing of medical-legal reporting in evidence, is a matter to be determined by the WCJ and by the Appeals Board. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312. 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; Lundberg v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436, 440 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 656].) Similarly, the Appeals Board is broadly authorized to consider "[r]eports of attending or examining physicians." (§ 5703, subd. (a); Valdez, supra, at p. 1239.) Section 4064(d) provides the no party is prohibited from obtaining any medical evaluation or consultation at the party's own expense, and that all comprehensive medical evaluations obtained by any party shall be admissible in any proceeding before the appeals board except as provided in specified statutes. (Lab. Code, § 4064(d); Valdez, supra, at p. 1239.)

ADJ11319973 · June 18, 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