What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; WCJ decision affirmed as amended to add § 5412 date of injury of August 14, 2023 and to find claim not barred by post-termination defensep. 1
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of WCJ's October 16, 2024 Findings of Fact and Order finding injury AOE/COE, no post-termination bar, and no statute of limitations bar
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 29, 2023.
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.
Opinions of PTP Dr. Moelleken and PQME Dr. Lyon constitute substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation
From the decision · page 5Moelleken and panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Valerie Lyon, M.D., to be substantial medical evidence which supports the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
Defendant failed to meet burden of establishing claim was filed after notice of termination
From the decision · page 4We also agree with the WCJ that applicant’s claim is not barred by the post termination defense. However, we find there is no need to apply any of the section 3600(a)(10) exceptions where defendant did not meet its burden of affirmatively establishing that applicant’s claim was filed after notice of termination.
PTP Dr. Moelleken report establishes concurrence of disability and knowledge on August 14, 2023
From the decision · page 4For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree that the WCJ correctly identified the section 5412 date of injury in this case is August 14, 2023, based on the report of primary treating physician (PTP) Alan Moellekan, M.D. (Applicant’s Exhibit 7, at p. 4.) We will amend the WCJ’s decision to add a finding in this regard.
Further development needed for high blood pressure, shortness of breath, hearing loss, and arthritis
From the decision · page 95. It is found that further development of the medical record is needed as to the conditions of high blood pressure, shortness of breath, hearing loss, and arthritis, with additional QME panels needed in ENT and Internal and a supplemental report from the QME Dr. Lyon. These conditions are reserved and deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PTP Dr. Moelleken report dated August 14, 2023 established concurrence of disability and knowledge that disability was caused by employment
Favours Applicant prevailed
Determines § 5412 date of injury and supports AOE/COE finding
From the decision · page 4For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree that the WCJ correctly identified the section 5412 date of injury in this case is August 14, 2023, based on the report of primary treating physician (PTP) Alan Moellekan, M.D. (Applicant’s Exhibit 7, at p. 4.) We will amend the WCJ’s decision to add a finding in this regard.
Defendant presented no documentary evidence or testimony regarding notice of termination
Favours Applicant prevailed
Defendant failed to meet burden of establishing post-termination defense applies
From the decision · page 4In fact, defendant did not present any documentary evidence or testimony regarding notice of termination. At trial, applicant gave conflicting testimony regarding
Applicant's medical records existing prior to termination contain evidence of injury
Favours Applicant prevailed
Would satisfy § 3600(a)(10)(B) exception if notice of termination were proven
From the decision · page 15“The WCJ recommended that reconsideration be denied. In her report, the WCJ pointed out that Applicant’s credible and unrebutted testimony was that he had obtained medical treatment in 2006 and 2007 for his injuries prior to his termination. Applicant’s testimony was corroborated by medical reports in existence prior to the termination.
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.
Found industrial causation for claimed injuries; established § 5412 date of injury of August 14, 2023
Report dated August 14, 2023 constitutes substantial medical evidence
From the decision · page 4For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree that the WCJ correctly identified the section 5412 date of injury in this case is August 14, 2023, based on the report of primary treating physician (PTP) Alan Moellekan, M.D. (Applicant’s Exhibit 7, at p. 4.) We will amend the WCJ’s decision to add a finding in this regard.
Found industrial causation to claimed body parts; agreed ENT needed for hearing loss opinion
Medical report dated May 3, 2024 and deposition testimony constitute substantial medical evidence
From the decision · page 5Moelleken and panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Valerie Lyon, M.D., to be substantial medical evidence which supports the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE).
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)
Medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability, framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning
Applied to find PTP and QME opinions constitute substantial medical evidence
From the decision · page 5Next, we turn to the substantiality of the evidence relied upon. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion “must be predicated on reasonable medical probability.” ( E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.
Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.
WCJ credibility determination given great weight absent evidence of considerable substantiality to reject it
Applied to uphold WCJ credibility finding regarding applicant's testimony
From the decision · page 5Moreover, we have given the WCJ’s credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp.
Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(10)
Defendant bears burden of proving notice of termination to invoke post-termination defense
Applied to find defendant failed to meet burden
From the decision · page 5( CJS Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fong) (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 294, 298 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 954].) Regardless, it was defendant’s burden to prove that there was in fact a notice of termination and it did not do so.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ credibility determination given great weight; no evidence of considerable substantiality to reject it
From the decision · page 6Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ’s credibility determination.
Defendant presented no documentary evidence or testimony regarding notice of termination
From the decision · page 4In fact, defendant did not present any documentary evidence or testimony regarding notice of termination. At trial, applicant gave conflicting testimony regarding
Applicant's medical records existing prior to termination contain evidence of injury
From the decision · page 15“The WCJ recommended that reconsideration be denied. In her report, the WCJ pointed out that Applicant’s credible and unrebutted testimony was that he had obtained medical treatment in 2006 and 2007 for his injuries prior to his termination. Applicant’s testimony was corroborated by medical reports in existence prior to the termination.
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.