What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal filed by defendants challenging the WCJ's Findings and Order dated 2/3/2022
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 and WCAB found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical opinions from the primary treating physician and the Panel QME, establishing injury AOE/COE despite prior injuries and arrests not impeaching credibility.
From the decision · page 5On 2/3/2022, the WCJ authored the following Findings of Fact: the applicant, born [] while employed on 12/2/2020 as an OSD Clerk at Bloomington, California by Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the lumbar spine, additional claim(s) of injury to additional body parts deferred. (Findings of Fact, 2/3/2022, page 1.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant credibly testified to injury mechanism and contemporaneous reporting to employer.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
From the decision · page 6In summary, the applicant testified credibly of the mechanism of having suffered an industrial injury. The applicant reported the injury to his employer contemporaneous with the injury. The applicant completed an injury report contemporaneous with the injury. The injury report included information concerning prior injury to the same or similar body parts. The site video depicted applicant clutching at his back at the point-of-injury. The applicant was sent to the industrial clinic, where he provided a history of his industrial injury and a recitation of prior injuries. The industrial clinic found injury AOE/COE. The Primary Treating Physician found injury AOE/COE. The Panel Qualified Medical Examiner found injury AOE/COE.
Medical opinions from Primary Treating Physician and Panel QME found injury AOE/COE despite prior injuries and arrests.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These opinions established causation and supported applicant's claim.
From the decision · page 4Trial Exhibit 3 was the medical report of Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. entitled "Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report." Dr. Haghighinia concludes in that report: "...Given the patient's current symptoms, physical findings and the nature of his injury, I believe that this patient's current condition and complaints are the direct result of his industrial injury of 12/20/2020..." (Exhibit 3, Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. dated 2/1/2021, Page 10.) Applicant was forthcoming with Dr. Haghighinia, disclosing a prior industrial injury to his back and a prior auto accident aggravating his back.. (Exhibit 3, Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. dated 2/1/2021, Page 4.)
Site video showed applicant clutching back at point of injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Corroborated applicant's testimony and injury claim.
From the decision · page 6In summary, the applicant testified credibly of the mechanism of having suffered an industrial injury. The applicant reported the injury to his employer contemporaneous with the injury. The applicant completed an injury report contemporaneous with the injury. The injury report included information concerning prior injury to the same or similar body parts. The site video depicted applicant clutching at his back at the point-of-injury. The applicant was sent to the industrial clinic, where he provided a history of his industrial injury and a recitation of prior injuries. The industrial clinic found injury AOE/COE. The Primary Treating Physician found injury AOE/COE. The Panel Qualified Medical Examiner found injury AOE/COE.
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.
Applicant's current condition and complaints are the direct result of his industrial injury of 12/20/2020.
Based on patient's symptoms, physical findings, and nature of injury.
From the decision · page 4Trial Exhibit 3 was the medical report of Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. entitled "Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report." Dr. Haghighinia concludes in that report: "...Given the patient's current symptoms, physical findings and the nature of his injury, I believe that this patient's current condition and complaints are the direct result of his industrial injury of 12/20/2020..." (Exhibit 3, Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. dated 2/1/2021, Page 10.) Applicant was forthcoming with Dr. Haghighinia, disclosing a prior industrial injury to his back and a prior auto accident aggravating his back.. (Exhibit 3, Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. dated 2/1/2021, Page 4.)
It is within reasonable medical probability that the injury sustained on December 2, 2020 arose out of employment at Old Dominion Freight Line.
Reviewed medical records including prior injuries and found no basis to change causation opinion.
From the decision · page 4Trial Exhibit 2 was the medical report of Dr. Vi Nguyen, D.C. entitled "Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation In the Specialty of Chiropractic Medicine." Dr. Nguyen concludes in that report that "...it is within reasonable medical probability that his new injury to the neck, lower back, and mid back sustained on December 2, 2020 have arisen out of his employment at Old Dominion Freight Line..." (Exhibit 2, Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation In the Specialty of Chiropractic Medicine, Dr. Vi Nguyen, D.C. dated 4/20/2021, Page 48 of 52.) Dr. Nguyen was provided and reviewed subpoenaed records pertaining to both a prior auto accident and a prior industrial injury. (Exhibit 1, Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation In the Specialty of Chiropractic Medicine, Dr. Vi Nguyen, D.C. dated 7/6/2021, Page 5-11.) After reviewing those records, Dr. Nguyen found no basis upon which to change his earlier April 2021 opinions, including his opinion on causation. (Exhibit 1, Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation In the Specialty of Chiropractic Medicine, Dr. Vi Nguyen, D.C. dated 7/6/2021, Page 12.)
Evaluated applicant at company clinic with history of injury to low back and neck lifting many boxes.
Provided medical evaluation consistent with injury history.
From the decision · page 10Three days after reporting his injury, applicant was referred by the employer to the company clinic. Exhibit 6 is the Doctor's First Report authored by Dr. Keith Wresch, describing his evaluation of applicant. The report reflects a history of applicant having suffered an injury to his low back and neck "...lifting many boxes..." (Exhibit 6, paragraph 17.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
For causation in workers' compensation injury claims, it is sufficient if the work is a contributing cause of the injury.
The court applied this standard to find injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
From the decision · page 1It is well established that for the purpose of meeting the causation requirement in a workers' compensation injury claim, it is sufficient if the work is a contributing cause of the injury. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489].) "...[T]he proximate cause requirement of Labor Code section 3600 has been interpreted as merely elaborating on the general requirement that the injury arise out of the employment. The danger from which the employee's injury results must be one to which he or she was exposed in the employment." (Id., at 297 - 298 [citations omitted].) The acceleration, aggravation or `lighting up' of a preexisting condition "is an injury in the occupation causing the same." (Id., at 301, quoting Tanenbaum v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1935) 4 Cal.2d 615, 617 [1935 Cal. LEXIS 590]; see also Zemke v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358]; Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Buckner) (1966) 65 Cal.2d 438 [31 Cal.Comp.Cases 421].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony of injury mechanism and contemporaneous reporting
From the decision · page 6In summary, the applicant testified credibly of the mechanism of having suffered an industrial injury. The applicant reported the injury to his employer contemporaneous with the injury. The applicant completed an injury report contemporaneous with the injury. The injury report included information concerning prior injury to the same or similar body parts. The site video depicted applicant clutching at his back at the point-of-injury. The applicant was sent to the industrial clinic, where he provided a history of his industrial injury and a recitation of prior injuries. The industrial clinic found injury AOE/COE. The Primary Treating Physician found injury AOE/COE. The Panel Qualified Medical Examiner found injury AOE/COE.
Site video depicting applicant clutching back at point of injury
From the decision · page 6In summary, the applicant testified credibly of the mechanism of having suffered an industrial injury. The applicant reported the injury to his employer contemporaneous with the injury. The applicant completed an injury report contemporaneous with the injury. The injury report included information concerning prior injury to the same or similar body parts. The site video depicted applicant clutching at his back at the point-of-injury. The applicant was sent to the industrial clinic, where he provided a history of his industrial injury and a recitation of prior injuries. The industrial clinic found injury AOE/COE. The Primary Treating Physician found injury AOE/COE. The Panel Qualified Medical Examiner found injury AOE/COE.
Medical opinions from Primary Treating Physician and Panel QME finding injury AOE/COE
From the decision · page 4Trial Exhibit 3 was the medical report of Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. entitled "Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report." Dr. Haghighinia concludes in that report: "...Given the patient's current symptoms, physical findings and the nature of his injury, I believe that this patient's current condition and complaints are the direct result of his industrial injury of 12/20/2020..." (Exhibit 3, Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. dated 2/1/2021, Page 10.) Applicant was forthcoming with Dr. Haghighinia, disclosing a prior industrial injury to his back and a prior auto accident aggravating his back.. (Exhibit 3, Primary Treating Physician's Medical-Legal Report Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C. dated 2/1/2021, Page 4.)
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.