Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code 5903(c) - substantial medical evidence required to support findings of fact
Applied to assess sufficiency of medical evidence for compensability of gastrointestinal injury
From the decision · page 45) The Petitioner is the Employer/Carrier in this matter. The statutory basis for Petition for
Reconsideration is that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact per LC § 5903 (c),
asserting that there is no substantial medical evidence to support the finding of fact that
Applicant sustained gastrointestinal injury as a compensable consequence of the low back
injury of March 3, 2013.
California Labor Code
Labor Code 4067 - formal medical evaluation requirements for recurrence or increase of injury effects
Referenced regarding the need for formal medical evaluation by the same AME for additional evaluations
From the decision · page 5Labor Code § 4067 states that, "If the jurisdiction of the appeals board is invoked pursuant
to Section 5803 upon the grounds that the effects of the injury have recurred, increased... a formal
medical evaluation shall be obtained pursuant to this article.
California Labor Code
Labor Code 5402(a) - employer's duty to investigate facts
Noted employer's responsibility to investigate facts related to injury
From the decision · page 5Further note that Labor Code § 5402 (a) puts the onus on the employer to investigate the
facts.
California Supreme Court
South Coast v. WCAB, 61 Cal.4th 291 (2015) - compensability of subsequent injuries related to initial industrial injury
Applied to support compensability of gastrointestinal injury as a consequence of the initial low back injury
From the decision · page 8This is what the WCJ was left with.
"[W]orkers' compensation liability may... encompass a subsequent nonindustrial injury...
attributable to the initial industrial accident." (South Coast, 61 Cal.4th at p. 297.) It has long been
the rule that "the aggravation of an industrial injury or the infliction of a new injury resulting from
its treatment or examination are compensable under the [Workers' Compensation Act] and,
therefore, within the exclusive cognizance of the [WCAB]." (Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 230, 232.)
In Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729, 735-738 Applicant had an adverse
drug reaction when treatment was required for employment.
California Supreme Court
Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 7 Cal.2d 230 (1936) - aggravation of injury by medical treatment compensable
Cited to support compensability of injury caused by medical treatment
From the decision · page 8This is what the WCJ was left with.
"[W]orkers' compensation liability may... encompass a subsequent nonindustrial injury...
attributable to the initial industrial accident." (South Coast, 61 Cal.4th at p. 297.) It has long been
the rule that "the aggravation of an industrial injury or the infliction of a new injury resulting from
its treatment or examination are compensable under the [Workers' Compensation Act] and,
therefore, within the exclusive cognizance of the [WCAB]." (Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 230, 232.)
In Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729, 735-738 Applicant had an adverse
drug reaction when treatment was required for employment.
California Supreme Court
Maher v. WCAB, 33 Cal.3d 729 (1983) - adverse drug reaction compensable
Referenced for compensability of adverse drug reaction as industrial injury
From the decision · page 8This is what the WCJ was left with.
"[W]orkers' compensation liability may... encompass a subsequent nonindustrial injury...
attributable to the initial industrial accident." (South Coast, 61 Cal.4th at p. 297.) It has long been
the rule that "the aggravation of an industrial injury or the infliction of a new injury resulting from
its treatment or examination are compensable under the [Workers' Compensation Act] and,
therefore, within the exclusive cognizance of the [WCAB]." (Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co. (1936) 7 Cal.2d 230, 232.)
In Maher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 729, 735-738 Applicant had an adverse
drug reaction when treatment was required for employment.
California Court of Appeal
Hikida v. WCAB, 12 Cal.App.5th 1249 (2017) - aggravation of injury by medical treatment compensable
Applied to affirm compensability of gastrointestinal injury caused by medication used for pain relief
From the decision · page 8Further, an employee is entitled to compensation for a new or aggravated injury that results
from the medical treatment of an industrial injury, whether the doctor was furnished by the
employer, the insurance carrier, or was selected by the employee. (Hikida v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (20 17) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249, 1262 (Hikida) citing Fitzpatrick v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co., supra, 7 Cal.2d at p. 232.) "Aggravation of the original injury by medical treatment is
considered 'a foreseeable consequence of the original compensable injury, compensable within the
workers' compensation proceeding and not the proper subject of an independent common law
damage proceeding against the employer.'" (Hikida, at p.