ADJ12491336 — California WCAB decision

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/COEApplicant prevailedsacrum · low back · left thigh · left leg · left foot · circulatory system · psyche

The WCJ and Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation of the injury on June 8, 2019, including vascular injury and psychiatric injury.

Penalties under Labor Code §5814Defendant prevailed

The Appeals Board found defendant's withholding of benefits was not unreasonable due to reliance on a treating physician's opinion, so the penalty was not justified and was struck.

Temporary disabilityApplicant prevailedleft leg · lumbar spine

The orthopedic QME's report justified the finding that applicant did not reach MMI until October 10, 2023, supporting retroactive temporary disability benefits.

From the decision · page 7With respect to the contention of the Petition that the evidence did not justify the finding and award of retroactive temporary disability for the period from November 15, 2019 to October 10, 2023, we conclude that the October 10, 2023 report of orthopedic QME Charles M. Sonu, M.D., admitted as Joint EE, justifies the WCJ's finding that applicant did not reach maximal medical improvement (MMI) until October 10, 2023, notwithstanding the parties' stipulation to an earlier MMI date based on the opinions of Dr. Vanderlinden, the QME in general surgery. Stipulations are not binding upon the Appeals Board or WCJ, and the Appeals Board or WCJ may reject a stipulation and base the decision on evidence presented at the hearing. (Lab. Code § 5702; Turner Gas Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kinney) (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 286, 290 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 253]; State of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Butterworth) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 673, 677 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 166]; Hanna, 2 CA Law of Employee Injuries & Workers' Comp § 26.06[2] (2025).) Accordingly, the WCJ was not bound by the parties' stipulated MMI date and was free to rely upon substantial medical evidence to the contrary in a different medical specialty, justifying a later MMI date.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant was injured on June 8, 2019, while loading a Bobcat, causing injury to sacrum, low back, left leg, and psyche.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This injury date and circumstances supported the finding of industrial causation by the QME and WCJ.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was injured on 6/8/19 while loading a Bobcat into a truck. He lost his grip and fell onto the sweeper attachment, striking his tailbone, low back and left leg. Applicant experienced immediate pain to his low back and left leg. Applicant called his boss and left a message since it was a Saturday. Applicant reported the injury to his employer on the following Monday and was referred to an industrial clinic. He was examined, x-ray studies were obtained, and medication was prescribed. Applicant was released to modified work duties and was assigned to drive for only two hours and perform his regular job duties.

QME Dr. Vanderlinden found industrial causation of vascular injury but his apportionment opinion lacked substantial evidence due to insufficient explanation.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This led to rejection of the 30% nonindustrial apportionment and favored applicant's claim for full industrial causation.

From the decision · page 7While Dr. Vanderlinden's opinion regarding cause of injury is clearly explained, his opinion regarding cause of disability states only that he would apportion 30 percent of current impairment to pre-existing vascular disease (Ibid., page 6, first paragraph). He does not explain how and why the pre-existing vascular disease is causing approximately 30 percent of present disability. This does not meet the standards for substantial medical evidence of apportionment explained in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc):

Orthopedic QME Dr. Sonu's report justified a later MMI date of October 10, 2023, supporting retroactive temporary disability benefits.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This evidence supported the WCJ's finding and award of retroactive TD benefits to applicant.

From the decision · page 7With respect to the contention of the Petition that the evidence did not justify the finding and award of retroactive temporary disability for the period from November 15, 2019 to October 10, 2023, we conclude that the October 10, 2023 report of orthopedic QME Charles M. Sonu, M.D., admitted as Joint EE, justifies the WCJ's finding that applicant did not reach maximal medical improvement (MMI) until October 10, 2023, notwithstanding the parties' stipulation to an earlier MMI date based on the opinions of Dr. Vanderlinden, the QME in general surgery. Stipulations are not binding upon the Appeals Board or WCJ, and the Appeals Board or WCJ may reject a stipulation and base the decision on evidence presented at the hearing. (Lab. Code § 5702; Turner Gas Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kinney) (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 286, 290 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 253]; State of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Butterworth) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 673, 677 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 166]; Hanna, 2 CA Law of Employee Injuries & Workers' Comp § 26.06[2] (2025).) Accordingly, the WCJ was not bound by the parties' stipulated MMI date and was free to rely upon substantial medical evidence to the contrary in a different medical specialty, justifying a later MMI date.

Defendant withheld benefits based on a treating physician's opinion that the vascular injury was nonindustrial, making the penalty under Labor Code 5814 unjustified.

Favours Defendant prevailed

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 · vascular surgery

Found industrial causation of vascular injury to left lower extremity; assigned 28% WPI; apportionment opinion of 30% nonindustrial vascular disease not substantial medical evidence.

Opinion supported causation but apportionment opinion lacked explanation and was rejected as substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 3On 12/17/19 Applicant was examined by QME Joseph L. Vanderlinden, M.D (Joint Exhibit CC, EAMS Doc ID # 54509690). Dr. Vanderlinden is a vascular surgeon. He opined Applicant had not reached a level of maximum medical improvement. Dr. Vanderlinden stated with reasonable medical probability that Applicant's injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment and found industrial causation to the left lower extremity because of the specific injury date on 6/8/19.

QMERelied upon · psychiatry

Found industrial psychiatric injury with 20% WPI and 15% nonindustrial causation.

Supported industrial psychiatric injury.

From the decision · page 4Applicant's next QME was with psychiatrist Miguel Alvarellos, M.D. The evaluation was on 8/21/23 (Joint Exhibit DD, EAMS Doc ID #54509692). Applicant informed Dr. Alvarellos he could perform the following activities: go places alone, drive short distances, and get along with family. Dr. Alvarellos found an industrial psychiatric injury. He assigned a 20% WPI and 15% nonindustrial causation.

QMERelied upon · orthopedic surgery

Found MMI on 10/10/23; assigned 6% WPI to lumbar spine; found 100% industrial causation for lumbar spine and left leg impairments.

Supported later MMI date and industrial causation for lumbar spine and left leg impairments.

From the decision · page 4Applicant's last QME was on 10/10/23. Applicant was evaluated by orthopedic surgeon Charles M. Sonu, M.D (Joint Exhibit EE, EAMS Doc ID # 54509693). Dr. Sonu opined Applicant reached maximum medical improvement on 10/10/23. With regard to causation, Dr. Sonu opined to a reasonable degree of medical probability that:

ADJ12491336 · May 15, 2025

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