ADJ13607768 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB panel affirmed the WCJ's August 9, 2022 Findings and Order denying the claim that applicant contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on January 20, 2019.

Petition for reconsideration of the August 9, 2022 Findings and Order was filed by applicant and denied by the WCAB panel after review and adoption of the WCJ's Report and Recommendation.

Read the official 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/COEDefendant prevailedvarious

The QME's well-reasoned reports, based on negative ELISA and Western Blot tests and supported by medical literature and the record, constitute substantial medical evidence that the applicant did not contract Lyme disease from the tick bite.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an August 9, 2022 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while working as a park aide for defendant, "did not contract Lyme disease as a result of a tick bite on January 20, 2019." The WCJ's decision was based upon the findings of the panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Thomas Leonard.

The facts that decided it

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

Found no injury AOE/COE based on negative ELISA and Western Blot tests and review of medical records.

The QME reviewed the medical literature, the applicant's medical records, and test results, and explained his reasoning in three reports and deposition.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of an August 9, 2022 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant, while working as a park aide for defendant, "did not contract Lyme disease as a result of a tick bite on January 20, 2019." The WCJ's decision was based upon the findings of the panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Thomas Leonard.

PTPRejected

Believed applicant contracted Lyme disease based on symptomology despite negative antibody tests.

Applicant argued that Lyme disease can be diagnosed by symptoms alone, but this was not supported by evidence consistent with Board Rule 10682.

From the decision · page 5Leonard and the trial judge placed considerable weight on the two tests applicant took for Lyme disease, the ELISA and the Western Blot, both of which were negative for Lyme disease." (Petition for Reconsideration at pg. 4). The reason for this considerable weight is that Lyme Disease is caused by bacteria, which, if it is present in the body, elicits an immune response. The presence of the bacteria causes human body to manufacture antibodies which are detectable in the blood. If the bacteria are present, antibodies will appear. If the antibodies do not appear, the bacteria is not present, and the individual does not have Lyme Disease. Although applicant argues, apparently based on statements made by her treating doctor, Dr. Gitlin, that Lyme Disease can be diagnosed by symptomology alone, despite a negative antibody test, there does not appear to be any evidence of this in the record. Moreover, none of Dr.

ADJ13607768 · July 24, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page