Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
To be substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and on an accurate history.
Applied to determine sufficiency of QME's opinion regarding shoulder and fingers injuries.
From the decision · page 5It appears that Dr. Mirzaians is awaiting additional diagnostics and a re-evaluation of
applicant before he addresses the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. However, it
also must be noted that in his November 1, 2021 supplemental report Dr. Mirzaians discussed
various inconsistencies in the record as to whether applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder,
left shoulder, or both shoulders. (Joint Exh. 4, pp. 6 § 7.) To be substantial evidence, a medical
opinion must be based on pertinent facts, on an adequate examination and on an accurate history.
(Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.) The inconsistencies in the medical record, as discussed by
Dr. Mirzaians, render his earlier opinions not substantial evidence as to applicant's shoulder injury.
Review of the record also indicates that Dr. Mirzaians did not review any medical records
pertaining to, and did not provide an opinion as to, the claimed "fingers" injury.4 Therefore, the
record does not contain substantial evidence regarding that issue.
Lab. Code § 5952(d)
Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
Applied to determine whether the record supported injury AOE/COE findings.
From the decision · page 4DISCUSSION
We first note that the Policy and Procedural Manual Index Number 1.135 Transcript
Requests, Administrative Director rules 9990 and 9991, and Appeals Board rule 10800, contain
specific rules and instructions to be followed by a party requesting a trial transcript. Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, § 9990 and 9991; Policy and Procedural Manual Index Number 1.135.) Having
reviewed the entire record including all documents in the Electronic Adjudication Management
System (EAMS) ADJ file, we see no indication that defendant complied with any of the
requirements applicable to the making of a request for a trial transcript. Based thereon, there is no
legal support for defendant's argument that because it did not receive a trial transcript, its due
process rights were "absolutely violated." (Petition, p. 6.) In fact, defendant's failure to comply
with the various procedures required in order to receive a trial transcript from the court reporter/
transcript clerk, renders the issue moot.
Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial
evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312
A WCJ's opinion regarding witness credibility is entitled to great weight.
Applied to credit applicant's testimony regarding injury mechanism.
From the decision · page 4(1974) 11 Cal.3d 274,
281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317
[35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) In the Opinion on Decision the WCJ stated that the finding of injury
AOE/COE was based on applicant's "credible" testimony, and the November 1, 2021 report from
QME Dr. Mirzaians. (F&A, p. 3, Opinion on Decision.) It is well established that a WCJ's opinion
regarding witness credibility is entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.,
supra, at 319.) Also, it is important to note that when deciding a medical issue, such as whether an
applicant sustained a cumulative injury, the WCJ must utilize expert medical opinion. (See
Insurance Company of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122
Cal.App.3d 905 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) Here, the physical examination of applicant and