SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ16362715 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ16362715 · September 25, 2023

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 2
Authorities named: 1
District office: Oakland

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the May 31, 2023 Findings and Award; the Petition was denied by the Appeals Board panel on September 25, 2023.

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/COEApplicant prevailedlumbar spine · cervical spine · thoracic spine · pelvis · coccyx · right shoulder girdle

The Board found Dr. Pang's opinion that the December 23, 2020 incident caused new injuries to multiple body parts more persuasive and substantial evidence than Dr. Feinberg's non-committal and contradictory opinions, supporting a finding of new injury AOE/COE from the work incident.

From the decision · page 8Based on all of the foregoing, and with no sufficient medical evidence presented to the contrary, Dr. Pang's analysis and opinion constitutes substantial evidence, and presents as more persuasive, to wit: Applicant suffered a new and distinct injury to his lumbar spine, cervical and thoracic spine, pelvis, coccyx, and right shoulder girdle as a result of the work-related incident of 12-23-2020.

The facts that decided it

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Applicant suffered a fall at work on December 23, 2020, resulting in injuries to lumbar spine, cervical and thoracic spine, pelvis, coccyx, and right shoulder girdle.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This event was the basis for the new injury claim and causation analysis.

From the decision · page 4On December 23, 2020, Applicant fell backwards, at work, onto his buttocks and tailbone while pulling a fire hose from which Applicant alleges a new injury. Applicant was followed medically by his treating physicians, Arthur Ting, MD, Mark Sontag, MD, David Smolins, MD, and George Rakkar, MD before the December 23, 2020 incident through January 6, 2023, and continuing.1 Applicant's treating physicians have rendered concurring opinions that Applicant has been, and is, unable to return to work since December 24, 2020 (i.e., Dr. Ting's Work Status Report, pgs 2,3; Applicant's Exhibit 28; See also Dr. Sontag's 6-28-2022 Work Status Report, pg 5; Applicant's Exhibit 13).

MRI post-12/23/2020 showed a compression fracture at L2 not present in prior records, indicating a new lumbar injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This objective medical evidence supported the finding of a new injury distinct from prior conditions.

From the decision · page 4A lumbar MRI on March 26, 2021 reported a compression fracture at L2 (Mark Sontag. MD Request for Authorization DCW Form RFA, dated 4-1-2021, pg 2, "DIAGNOSTICS" #4, Applicant's Exhibit 26). Dr. Sontag noted that Applicant was experiencing symptoms in his neck and upper back, in addition to his lower back. He also opined that Applicant was P&S as to the February 7, 2019 injury but was not MMI as to his December 23, 2020 injury. Dr. Sontag's conclusions (that Applicant was not MMI, and was unable to return to work) was reiterated in his June 28, 2022 Work Status Report (See Applicant's Exhibits 14 and 27). Dr. Rakkar (taking over upon Dr. Sontag's retirement) continues to find Applicant unable to return to work through the present time (See Applicant's Exhibits 5 and 6).

Dr. Pang's detailed causation opinion linking the December 23, 2020 fall to new injuries was found substantial and more persuasive than Dr. Feinberg's non-committal opinion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This medical opinion was critical to establishing new injury causation and overcoming defense objections.

From the decision · page 8Based on all of the foregoing, and with no sufficient medical evidence presented to the contrary, Dr. Pang's analysis and opinion constitutes substantial evidence, and presents as more persuasive, to wit: Applicant suffered a new and distinct injury to his lumbar spine, cervical and thoracic spine, pelvis, coccyx, and right shoulder girdle as a result of the work-related incident of 12-23-2020.