Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621
Medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination/history, with reasoning in support of conclusions
AME reports meet substantial evidence test
From the decision · page 15(1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To constitute substantial evidence “... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” ( Escobedo v.
Power v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3th 775
Opinions of Agreed Medical Evaluators should be followed unless good reason to find them unpersuasive
AME reports of Pang and Noriega followed
From the decision · page 16It is well established that parties choose Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs) due to their expertise and neutrality, and that therefore the opinions of those AMEs should be followed unless there is good reason to find their opinions unpersuasive. ( Power v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.
Lab. Code, § 3202; Guerra v. WCAB (2016) 81 Cal.Comp.Cases 324
All reasonable doubts as to compensability resolved in favor of employee; liberally construed for protection of injured workers
Compensability finding in applicant's favor
From the decision · page 16(1986) 179 Cal.App.3th 775.) “All reasonable doubts as to whether an injury is compensable are to be resolved in favor of the employee.
Western Growers Insurance Co. v. WCAB (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227
One exposure may result in two distinct injuries; nature and number determined by events, medical history, and medical testimony
Single cumulative trauma injury found despite multiple body parts
From the decision · page 17“[O]ne exposure may result in two distinct injuries …. The nature and the number of injuries suffered are determined by the events leading to the injury, the medical history of the claimant, and the medical testimony received.” ( Western Growers Insurance Co. v.