ADJ14772071 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

December 12, 2024 Findings of Fact and Orders affirmed except amended as stated; reconsideration granted.

Petition for reconsideration granted to admit applicant's Exhibit 2 into evidence; otherwise WCJ's decision affirmed.

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 prevailedlumbar spine · back

The substantial medical evidence of PQME Dr. Nicole Chitnis was credited, and applicant's contrary evidence was found not credible or substantial.

From the decision · page 6Dr. Chitnis performed thorough and complete evaluations of applicant. Correctly, Dr. Chitnis insisted that applicant's voluminous medical treatment records be provided to her for review and commentary. Dr. Chitnis causation opinion was provided to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Dr. Chitnis' reporting is substantial medical evidence. Based on the substantial medical evidence of Dr. Chitnis, applicant did not sustain any industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

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

Performed thorough evaluations, reviewed voluminous records, and opined to a reasonable degree of medical probability that applicant did not sustain any industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

The WCJ and Appeals Board credited Dr. Chitnis' thorough evaluations and causation opinion as substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 6Dr. Chitnis performed thorough and complete evaluations of applicant. Correctly, Dr. Chitnis insisted that applicant's voluminous medical treatment records be provided to her for review and commentary. Dr. Chitnis causation opinion was provided to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Dr. Chitnis' reporting is substantial medical evidence. Based on the substantial medical evidence of Dr. Chitnis, applicant did not sustain any industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

otherRejected

Co-signed a note with PA Tam McManus adding 'work' to the hours statement, but the note was found to be self-serving and not substantial medical evidence.

The note was reviewed by Dr. Chitnis and found not credible to rebut Dr. Chitnis' opinion.

From the decision · page 10To rebut Dr. Chitnis, applicant relies on the reporting of his non-industrial treaters. On October 16, 2023, applicant had a virtual appointment with Kathleen Tam McManus, PA. (Exhibit 3.) PA Tam McManus reported "prolonged sitting (at one point, 60 hours a week, sometimes 12 hours/day) contributed to low back pain and disability and eventual need for surgery." (Id. at p. 1.) The same day, applicant called the treater's office, thanked PA Tam McManus for her report, and requested that the word "WORK" be added be added to the hours statement. (Id. at p. 2.) On October 17, 2023, a formal note issued from PA Tam McManus and Serena S. Hu, MD, with the word "work" added as requested by applicant6. (Exhibit 4.) Exhibits 3 and 4, as obtained by applicant, are at best self-serving; they are not substantial medical evidence. Hence, lastly, there is no credible evidence, medical or otherwise, to rebut the conclusions of Dr. Chitnis.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's testimony about Dr. Chitnis' face-to-face time was found not credible due to demeanor and inconsistencies.

From the decision · page 5In a bench trial, the trial court is the "sole judge" of witness credibility. (Davis v. Kahn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 868, 874.) The trial judge may believe or disbelieve uncontradicted witnesses if there is any rational ground for doing so. (Id.) The fact finder's determination of the veracity of a witness is final. (People v. Bobeda (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 496, 500.) Credibility determinations thus are subject to extremely deferential review. (La Jolla Casa deManana v. Hopkins (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 339, 345§ 346 ["[A] trial judge has an inherent right to disregard the testimony of any witness...The trial judge is the arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses"].) (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570, 582 [emphasis added].) Furthermore, in workers' compensation proceedings, a WCJ's credibility determinations are "entitled to great weight because of the [WCJ's] `opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand....' [Citation.]" (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's self-procured medical reports were considered self-serving and not substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 10To rebut Dr. Chitnis, applicant relies on the reporting of his non-industrial treaters. On October 16, 2023, applicant had a virtual appointment with Kathleen Tam McManus, PA. (Exhibit 3.) PA Tam McManus reported "prolonged sitting (at one point, 60 hours a week, sometimes 12 hours/day) contributed to low back pain and disability and eventual need for surgery." (Id. at p. 1.) The same day, applicant called the treater's office, thanked PA Tam McManus for her report, and requested that the word "WORK" be added be added to the hours statement. (Id. at p. 2.) On October 17, 2023, a formal note issued from PA Tam McManus and Serena S. Hu, MD, with the word "work" added as requested by applicant6. (Exhibit 4.) Exhibits 3 and 4, as obtained by applicant, are at best self-serving; they are not substantial medical evidence. Hence, lastly, there is no credible evidence, medical or otherwise, to rebut the conclusions of Dr. Chitnis.

ADJ14772071 · March 14, 2025

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