What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied, affirming WCJ's findings of industrial injury and reasonableness of medical treatment by Dr. Schames.
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 relied on the treating physician Dr. Schames's detailed medical opinion based on objective clinical findings and reasonable medical probability, which was substantial evidence supporting industrial causation; the WCAB adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Here, the undersigned WCJ relied on the treating physician's report of Dr. Schames, dated May 14, 2021, on page 9, who wrote the following regarding causation:
The WCJ found the medical treatment reasonable and consistent with Labor Code 4604.5 based on Dr. Schames's detailed medical necessity opinion; the WCAB adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.
From the decision · page 7As demonstrated above, the medical treatment by Mayer Schames, D.D.S., a California stock corporation doing business as The Dental Trauma Center, was reasonable and consistent with Labor Code § 4604.5. In addition, its medical reporting was reasonable in accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785. RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned WCJ respectfully recommends denial of the Defendant's petition for reconsideration dated April 5, 2024. Date: April 8, 2024
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Schames's May 14, 2021 medical report provided objective clinical findings of bruxism and TMJ disease and opined industrial exposure aggravated pre-existing bruxism causing facial pain and TMJ symptoms.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical opinion was substantial evidence relied upon by the WCJ to find industrial causation, which the WCAB adopted and incorporated in denying reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Here, the undersigned WCJ relied on the treating physician's report of Dr. Schames, dated May 14, 2021, on page 9, who wrote the following regarding causation:
Favours Applicant prevailed
This procedural failure favored the applicant's position on the reasonableness of medical treatment, supporting the WCJ's finding which the WCAB adopted and incorporated.
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.
Found objective clinical findings of bruxism and temporomandibular joint disease; opined industrial exposure aggravated pre-existing bruxism causing facial pain and TMJ symptoms; recommended daytime and nocturnal oral appliances and periodontal maintenance as reasonable medical treatment.
Based on objective findings, adequate examination, and reasonable medical probability, not speculative; substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation and medical necessity.
From the decision · page 4Here, the undersigned WCJ relied on the treating physician's report of Dr. Schames, dated May 14, 2021, on page 9, who wrote the following regarding causation:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Applicant must show industrial causation by a preponderance of the evidence, with substantial medical evidence based on reasonable medical probability.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Schames's medical opinion as substantial evidence of industrial causation, which the WCAB adopted and incorporated in denying reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4For an applicant to meet his or her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, pursuant to Labor Code § 3202.5, he or she must establish that an injury was caused by his or her employment and occurred while he or she was working. [Labor Code § 3600(a).]
Labor Code 4604.5; Torres v. AJC Sandblasting (2012) 77 Cal. Comp. Cases 1113; Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lopez) (2015) 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 380; Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Chatham) (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 714
Medical treatment must be reasonable and consistent with Labor Code 4604.5 and ACOEM/MTUS guidelines; lien claimant bears burden of proof for reasonableness.
The WCJ found Dr. Schames's treatment reasonable and consistent with the law and guidelines, which the WCAB adopted and incorporated in denying reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6Labor Code § 4604.5 provides that the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Occupational Medicine Practice (ACOEM) Guidelines or any Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) adopted by the Administrative Director are presumed to be correct on the issue of reasonable of the medical treatment. The same section also states that this presumption is rebuttable by scientific medical evidence establishing that a variance from the ACOEM Guidelines or MTUS is reasonably required. Therefore, in order to meet this burden of proof, a lien claimant is required to show that the disputed medical treatment was reasonably necessary to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury and that this treatment was consistent with ACOEM Guidelines or the MTUS. [Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lopez) (2015) 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 380 (writ denied)] This requirement applies retroactively to all open cases, regardless of the date of injury or the date of medical treatment. [Sierra Pacific Industries v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Chatham) (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 714.] In this case, notwithstanding the articulated criticisms of the Defendant, based on the medical report of Dr. Schames dated May 14, 2021, on pages 12 to 13, he wrote as follows regarding medical necessity:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Objective clinical findings of bruxism and TMJ disease by Dr. Schames
From the decision · page 4Here, the undersigned WCJ relied on the treating physician's report of Dr. Schames, dated May 14, 2021, on page 9, who wrote the following regarding causation:
Defendant failed to notify provider of deferral of authorization, waiving retrospective utilization review
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.