ADJ13666588 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant on June 12, 2023, denied by WCAB on July 27, 2023, adopting and incorporating the WCJ report.

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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailedlumbar spine · lower extremities

The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to reject the WCJ's findings, and denied the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

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

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

Initially found industrial cumulative trauma injury to lumbar spine, but later changed opinion regarding causation.

The WCAB considered Dr. Aminian's initial and changed opinions in the context of the petition for reconsideration and found the WCJ's evaluation of these opinions supported by substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 4Applicant filed the cumulative trauma injury claim on September 30, 2020. The parties utilized the services of a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Arash Aminian. PQME. Dr. Aminian examined the applicant on March 31, 2021. (Joint Ex. 1, pg. 1) Initially, PQME Dr. Aminian found industrial cumulative trauma injury to her lumbar spine. (Joint Ex. 1, pg. 17). On September 14, 2021, PQME Aminian was deposed and changed his opinion entirely regarding causation. (Joint Ex. 3)

QMERelied upon · M.D.

Initially found industrial specific injury to lumbar spine, later found no industrial specific injury but left open possibility of industrial cumulative trauma injury, and opined at deposition that cumulative trauma period resulted in at least 1% industrial apportionment of lumbar spine injury.

The WCAB considered Dr. Suzuki's reports and deposition testimony in the context of the petition for reconsideration and found the WCJ's evaluation of these opinions supported by substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 4On September 24, 2021, Applicant filed a subsequent claim for a November 27, 2017 specific injury. The parties utilized the services of a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), Dr. Stephen Suzuki, M.D. Dr. Suzuki examined the applicant on February 26, 2022 based upon the newly filed application for adjudication for the specific injury. PQME Dr. Suzuki initially found industrial specific injury to her lumbar spine. (App. Ex. 1, pg. 9) On July 6, 2022, PQME Suzuki issued another report finding no industrial specific injury but left open the possibility of an industrial cumulative trauma injury (App. Ex. 2, pg 28). Dr. Suzuki was deposed on July 11, 2022 where he stated that the period of employment at Nordstrom during the cumulative trauma period resulted in at least 1% industrial apportionment of the lumbar spine injury. (App. Ex. 3 pg. 38 ll. 1-4; pg.40 ll. 19-25; pg. 41 ll. 1-6; pg. 45 11. 1-5)

ADJ13666588 · July 27, 2023

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