What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant Lowe's Company, Inc. challenging Findings of Fact, Award, and Order dated 23 September 2021.
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 properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. and the applicant's credible testimony to find temporary disability from 18 May 2021 through 17 August 2021, with no rebuttal evidence from defendant.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The applicant's testimony was found credible and she had not returned to work as of the trial date.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The credible testimony supported the finding of temporary disability and no rebuttal evidence was offered by the defendant.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
The WCJ relied on the substantial medical opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This opinion was the primary medical evidence supporting the finding of temporary disability for the period 18 May 2021 through 17 August 2021.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
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.
Provided substantial medical evidence supporting temporary disability from 18 May 2021 through 17 August 2021.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Duggal's opinion as substantial medical evidence for the limited period of temporary disability.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
No representation of an AME agreement to resolve temporary disability dispute; no AME report considered.
No AME agreement was represented; the matter was resolved on expedited hearing without AME report.
From the decision · page 4In regard to Michael Sommer, M.D. resolving the temporary disability dispute as the parties' Agreed Medical Evaluator ("AME"), there was no representation of an AME agreement. The matter came on the Expedited Calendar to resolve the issue of the applicant's entitlement to temporary disability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]
The WCJ's credibility determination is given great weight when the WCJ has observed the witness's demeanor (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319).
The WCJ's credibility determination was given great weight because the WCJ observed the witness's demeanor and found no substantial evidence to reject it.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony and lack of rebuttal evidence from defendant
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied on the substantial opinion of primary treating physician Arun Duggal, M.D. Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
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.