What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles after Alternate Dispute Resolution Arbitrator issued Findings and Award; petition denied by WCAB panel.
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 Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion was found to be substantial evidence despite the lack of peer-reviewed studies provided, as the evaluator was chosen for expertise and neutrality and no contradictory studies were presented.
From the decision · page 184. Whether Medical Reporting of Fred Kuyt, M.D. is Substantial Evidence. Defendant argues that the reporting of Dr. Kuyt is not substantial evidence as he did not provide the parties with the peer reviewed studies he had read throughout his career on the issue of causation of testicular cancer. Presumably, the Agreed Medical Evaluator was chosen by both parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore, his opinion should carry great weight. It would have been better for the parties if the doctor provided some of the peer reviewed studies that he testified he has reviewed throughout his career. However, his failure to provide the articles does not make his reporting inadmissible. If there were any studies that contradicted the doctor's opinions they could have been offered by defendant and the Agreed Medical Evaluator could have been cross-examined to alter his opinion and considered by the Arbitrator.
The applicant's credible testimony about using physical force in his duties supported the use of occupational group number 490, which is appropriate for demanding activities in unpredictable and dangerous circumstances.
From the decision · page 173. Occupational Group Number 490 vs 390 Applicant was hired by the City of Los Angeles on June 2, 2003, as a Los Angeles Police Department civilian Police Officer. His duties are to maintain custody of arrestees. He has held the same job title through today's date. On multiple occasions he has been required to use lawful force. He will assist Police Officers restraining arrestees. However, when the Sworn Officers are not present, the civilian Police Officers are required to handle the situation by themselves. (Attachment Page 18 of this Report and Recommendation, First Amended Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 7, 2025, Page 4, lines: 6-10) Based upon the applicant's credible testimony that he used physical force to handle the arrestees within the jail facility, it is found that his Group Number is 490. It is not the specific designation of "sworn officer" or "civilian officer" that determines the Group Number, but the actual job duties of the person that controls. The Arbitrator notes that both 490 and 390, for a testicular injury results in the same "F" modifier and does not make any difference in this case, for rating purposes.
The applicant withdrew his claim after learning the presumption did not apply, and the statute of limitations did not expire based on the evidence and testimony.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible and uncontradicted testimony about working conditions and exposure to toxic substances for 14 years.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of industrial injury causation for testicular cancer.
From the decision · page 17Based on the Applicant's uncontradicted, credible testimony of the conditions the applicant worked in for 14 years and Agreed Medical Examiner's, Dr. Kuyt's, reporting and expertise according to his depo testimony, it is found applicant sustained industrial injury to his Reproductive System, (Testicular Cancer).
Agreed Medical Evaluator Fred Kuyt's medical reports and deposition testimony.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provided substantial medical evidence of industrial causation and apportionment of 60% industrial and 40% non-industrial factors.
From the decision · page 13Applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the Reproductive System, (Testicular Cancer). Based on the medical reporting of Fred Kuyt, M.D. dated April 4, 2023, July 3, 2023, October 27, 2023 and his deposition testimony on March 28, 2024, and the credible testimony of the applicant, it is found applicant sustained injury to his Reproductive System, (Testicular Cancer).
Applicant's credible testimony that he used physical force in his duties, supporting occupational group number 490.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Determined the appropriate occupational group number for permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 173. Occupational Group Number 490 vs 390 Applicant was hired by the City of Los Angeles on June 2, 2003, as a Los Angeles Police Department civilian Police Officer. His duties are to maintain custody of arrestees. He has held the same job title through today's date. On multiple occasions he has been required to use lawful force. He will assist Police Officers restraining arrestees. However, when the Sworn Officers are not present, the civilian Police Officers are required to handle the situation by themselves. (Attachment Page 18 of this Report and Recommendation, First Amended Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 7, 2025, Page 4, lines: 6-10) Based upon the applicant's credible testimony that he used physical force to handle the arrestees within the jail facility, it is found that his Group Number is 490. It is not the specific designation of "sworn officer" or "civilian officer" that determines the Group Number, but the actual job duties of the person that controls. The Arbitrator notes that both 490 and 390, for a testicular injury results in the same "F" modifier and does not make any difference in this case, for rating purposes.
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.
With reasonable medical probability, the applicant's testicular cancer arose out of his work environment exposure to pesticides, mold, and fungus, with 60% industrial causation and 40% non-industrial causation.
The AME's medical reports and deposition testimony provided substantial evidence of industrial causation for the applicant's testicular cancer.
From the decision · page 13Applicant claims to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to the Reproductive System, (Testicular Cancer). Based on the medical reporting of Fred Kuyt, M.D. dated April 4, 2023, July 3, 2023, October 27, 2023 and his deposition testimony on March 28, 2024, and the credible testimony of the applicant, it is found applicant sustained injury to his Reproductive System, (Testicular Cancer).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922
Medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on adequate examination and history, not speculative, and supported by reasoning.
Applied to evaluate the substantiality of medical evidence for injury arising out of employment and course of employment.
From the decision · page 3II. The WCA's Finding that applicant's injury arose out of employment and occurred during the course of employment (AOE/COE) was supported by substantial medical evidence. A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must be based on an adequate examination and history, it must not be speculative, and it must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Bd. en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony about working conditions and exposure to toxic and carcinogenic substances for 14 years.
From the decision · page 17Based on the Applicant's uncontradicted, credible testimony of the conditions the applicant worked in for 14 years and Agreed Medical Examiner's, Dr. Kuyt's, reporting and expertise according to his depo testimony, it is found applicant sustained industrial injury to his Reproductive System, (Testicular Cancer).
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.