Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5; South Coast Framing v. WCAB (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; McAllister v. WCAB (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408; Guerra v. WCAB (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1301; Clemmons v. WCAB (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 1; Garza v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312
Applicant bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. It is sufficient to show that work was a contributing cause of the injury. All reasonable doubts as to whether an injury is compensable are to be resolved in favor of the employee.
Applied to determine that applicant met burden of proof for AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 6Applicant 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, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a); 3202.5.) It is sufficient to show
that work was a contributing cause of the injury. (See Clark, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 298; McAllister
v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].)
Applicant need only show that industrial causation was "not zero" to show sufficient contribution
from work exposure for the claim to be compensable. (Clark, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 303.) The
burden of proof "manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific
certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58
Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) It has also long been established that "all reasonable doubts as to whether
an injury is compensable are to be resolved in favor of the employee." (Guerra v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310 [81 Cal.Comp.Cases 324], citing Clemmons v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 1, 8; see also Garza, supra, 3 Cal.3d at
p. 317; Lab. Code, § 3202.)
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (en banc)
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not be speculative, be based on pertinent facts and an adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.
Applied to determine that the medical opinions of PTP and PQME constituted substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 6It is also well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by
substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza, supra; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence'
means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla,
and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood
Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48
Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) 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. Marshalls
(2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)