ADJ11389287 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant after WCJ decision denying benefits

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 prevailedarms · shoulders · elbows · wrists · hands · fingers · back · lumbar spine

The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Vyas's medical opinion substantial and credible, rejecting Applicant's arguments against it, and found insufficient evidence of industrial causation due to short employment and lack of symptom development time.

From the decision · page 3Applicant's first argument is this WCJ erred in relying on the medical reporting of Dr. Shail Vyas as she contends that it is not substantial medical evidence. In support of this position, Applicant contends that there are four separate reasons that the medical report(s) do not constitute substantial evidence: (1) The job duties that Applicant testified to at trial were not taken into account by Dr. Vyas, (2) The medical report is internally inconsistent regarding Applicant's complaints of pain, (3) Applicant testified that she spent only 5 minutes with Dr. Vyas, and (4) The Dr. Vyas fails to provide an explanation for Applicant's diagnostic findings.

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

Dr. Vyas opined insufficient length of employment to substantiate cumulative trauma claim and found no causal link between work and objective findings on MRIs.

Dr. Vyas reviewed medical records and MRIs and concluded no industrial causation due to short employment and symptom timing.

From the decision · page 4Finally, Applicant's last basis for finding Dr. Vyas's report is not substantial is that he failed to provide an explanation for the objective findings on the MRIs performed on this 37 year old Applicant. Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration specifically refers to the MRI of Applicant's lumbar spine and right shoulder. Applicant's lumbar spine MRI shows disc protrusions from L3 to S1 all less than 3mm. Although the MRIs themselves were not offered into evidence, from the review of the MRIs done by Dr. Khan (Applicant's Exhibit 2, pages 12, EAMS Doc ID 33851335), the report only shows mild stenosis. As for Applicant's right shoulder MRI, both doctor's indicate that there is evidence of findings consistent with posterior glenoid labrum tear. Dr. Vyas opined that the Applicant did not work long enough (15 days before commencement of symptomology) to accumulate any significant trauma. (Defendant's Exhibit B, page 12. CAUSATION paragraph, EAMS Doc ID 33819679). The doctor reviewed the MRIs and simply found insufficient causal link between Applicant's work and the objective findings. There is no requirement that the doctor provide any explanation as to what might have caused the objective findings; he needs only to address whether they are industrially related or not.

PTPGiven great weight

Dr. Khan's reports did not indicate extra job duties beyond initial reports and did not support cumulative trauma claim.

Dr. Khan's reports lacked mention of additional job duties and did not support cumulative trauma claim.

From the decision · page 2Applicant started treating with Dr. Zareena Khan on July 23, 2018 but failed to inform the doctor about any extra duties she did regarding packing shoes. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, page 1, History of Injury and Job Description paragraphs, EAMS Doc ID 33851337) Dr. Zareena Khan's final report also fails to indicate any extra job duties beyond those indicated in the doctor's initial report. (Applicant's Exhibit 2, pages 1-2, Job Description and History of Injury paragraphs, EAMS Doc ID 33851335) Applicant was eventually seen by a panel qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Shail Vyas, on December 26, 2019. (Defendant's Exhibit B, EAMS Doc ID 33819679). The Applicant testified that she did not tell the doctor about her working on the production line for boxing shoes because she did not think that this was important information to give to the doctor. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, 10-22-2020, page 4, lines 15-16, EAMS Doc ID 73449917)

ADJ11389287 · March 30, 2021

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