What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted solely to admit additional exhibits; original findings and award otherwise affirmed
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant, decision after reconsideration issued
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 Board found the medical reports of Drs. Berman, Cohen, Faddoul, and Tirmizi to constitute substantial medical evidence and found the applicant's argument unpersuasive.
From the decision · page 11Applicant's final contention is that he has not received adequate medical assessments under workers' compensation law. Applicant was examined by Orthopedic AME, Dr. Berman (Exhibits "A," "B," "C," and "D") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 43783811, 36468047, 27574571, and 51666874), Psychiatric QME, Dr. Cohen (Exhibits "G" and "W") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 45680021 and 51666875), Urological QME, Dr. Faddoul (Exhibits "E" and "F") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 41141501 and 53358657), and Internal AME, Dr. Tirmizi (Exhibit "I") (EAMS Doc ID No. 41784749). Each
The Board found no evidence supporting the allegations against Dr. Faddoul and found his reporting substantial and persuasive.
From the decision · page 11There is simply no evidence apart from Applicant's statements that Dr. Faddoul engaged in any wrongdoing. Dr. Faddoul was not present to answer the allegations and Applicant presented no proof of what may have occurred. Applicant has confirmed he has not pursued any remedies in civil or criminal court, has filed no police reports, and has not consulted an attorney as to his rights (if any) related to these allegations. Weighing the evidence as is relevant to the present case, I found Applicant's argument on this matter to be unpersuasive as to the substantiality of Dr. Faddoul's reporting. This court made no comment as to Applicant's credibility with respect to whether the allegations are true, only that Dr. Faddoul's reporting was not rendered non-substantial based on the evidence presented at trial.
The Board found the argument unpersuasive as the applicant had representation for most of the case period.
The Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of transmission and granted reconsideration solely to admit additional exhibits, otherwise affirming the original findings and award.
From the decision · page 2I. Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Board found the applicant's contention erroneous and relied on Dr. Dorsey's psychiatric reports and Dr. Berman's AME reports for orthopedic injuries.
From the decision · page 92. Role of Dr. Dorsey Applicant's next contention is that he never testified Dr. Dorsey was his primary orthopedic doctor. This is accurate. Neither the MOH/SOE nor the Joint Opinion on Decision characterize Dr. E. Richard Dorsey, M.D. as a "primary orthopedic doctor." (See MOH/SOE EAMS Doc ID No. 78633616) and Joint Opinion on Decision (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196)). Although both parties stipulated that E. Richard Dorsey, M.D. was the primary treating physician for case ADJ10928268 (See Pretrial Conference Statement dated October 14, 2024 at pg. 4 (EAMS Doc ID No. 54422127) and Joint Opinion on Decision at pg. 2 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196)), the Joint Opinion on Decision properly discusses Dr. E. Richard Dorsey's medical reporting in his capacity as a psychiatrist. Additionally, as to the orthopedic injuries, the undersigned relied on the AME reports of Dr. Berman (See Joint Opinion on Decision (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196)). Based on the foregoing, Applicant's contention regarding the role of Dr. E. Richard Dorsey is erroneous and the Petition should be denied.
Applicant was not prejudiced by alleged defective service as he filed a timely petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 91. Alleged Defective Service Applicant first contends defective service of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision. Applicant references his letter dated February 12, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78871515) wherein he alleges he received an empty envelope. The Joint Findings and Award and Joint Opinion on Decision note service on the applicant by mail on January 27, 2025. (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803295 at pg. 4 and EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196 at pg. 17). Notwithstanding the alleged state of service, the applicant was not prejudiced as he filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 21, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78894725). The merits of the Petition are discussed below.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 4, 2025, and the Board acted within 60 days as required by Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing made the Board's action on the petition timely and valid, supporting the grant of reconsideration solely to admit evidence.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 4, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Saturday, May 3, 2025. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, May 5, 2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)1 This decision is issued by or on Monday, May 5, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
Applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 21, 2025 despite alleging defective service of the Findings and Award.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This showed no prejudice from the alleged defective service, supporting denial of that claim.
From the decision · page 91. Alleged Defective Service Applicant first contends defective service of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision. Applicant references his letter dated February 12, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78871515) wherein he alleges he received an empty envelope. The Joint Findings and Award and Joint Opinion on Decision note service on the applicant by mail on January 27, 2025. (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803295 at pg. 4 and EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196 at pg. 17). Notwithstanding the alleged state of service, the applicant was not prejudiced as he filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 21, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78894725). The merits of the Petition are discussed below.
No evidence was presented to support allegations of sexual assault against Dr. Faddoul, and the medical reports were found substantial and persuasive.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the Board's reliance on Dr. Faddoul's reports and denial of the challenge to his reporting.
From the decision · page 11There is simply no evidence apart from Applicant's statements that Dr. Faddoul engaged in any wrongdoing. Dr. Faddoul was not present to answer the allegations and Applicant presented no proof of what may have occurred. Applicant has confirmed he has not pursued any remedies in civil or criminal court, has filed no police reports, and has not consulted an attorney as to his rights (if any) related to these allegations. Weighing the evidence as is relevant to the present case, I found Applicant's argument on this matter to be unpersuasive as to the substantiality of Dr. Faddoul's reporting. This court made no comment as to Applicant's credibility with respect to whether the allegations are true, only that Dr. Faddoul's reporting was not rendered non-substantial based on the evidence presented at trial.
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.
Provided extensive record review, thorough discussion, and opinions based on reasonable medical probability; reports constituted substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 11Applicant's final contention is that he has not received adequate medical assessments under workers' compensation law. Applicant was examined by Orthopedic AME, Dr. Berman (Exhibits "A," "B," "C," and "D") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 43783811, 36468047, 27574571, and 51666874), Psychiatric QME, Dr. Cohen (Exhibits "G" and "W") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 45680021 and 51666875), Urological QME, Dr. Faddoul (Exhibits "E" and "F") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 41141501 and 53358657), and Internal AME, Dr. Tirmizi (Exhibit "I") (EAMS Doc ID No. 41784749). Each
Medical reporting relied on in capacity as psychiatrist; not characterized as primary orthopedic doctor.
From the decision · page 92. Role of Dr. Dorsey Applicant's next contention is that he never testified Dr. Dorsey was his primary orthopedic doctor. This is accurate. Neither the MOH/SOE nor the Joint Opinion on Decision characterize Dr. E. Richard Dorsey, M.D. as a "primary orthopedic doctor." (See MOH/SOE EAMS Doc ID No. 78633616) and Joint Opinion on Decision (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196)). Although both parties stipulated that E. Richard Dorsey, M.D. was the primary treating physician for case ADJ10928268 (See Pretrial Conference Statement dated October 14, 2024 at pg. 4 (EAMS Doc ID No. 54422127) and Joint Opinion on Decision at pg. 2 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196)), the Joint Opinion on Decision properly discusses Dr. E. Richard Dorsey's medical reporting in his capacity as a psychiatrist. Additionally, as to the orthopedic injuries, the undersigned relied on the AME reports of Dr. Berman (See Joint Opinion on Decision (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196)). Based on the foregoing, Applicant's contention regarding the role of Dr. E. Richard Dorsey is erroneous and the Petition should be denied.
Reports found substantial and persuasive; no evidence supporting allegations of misconduct; found symptoms of fecal incontinence and groin/genital issues industrial and related to back injury with 7% permanent disability for fecal incontinence.
From the decision · page 11There is simply no evidence apart from Applicant's statements that Dr. Faddoul engaged in any wrongdoing. Dr. Faddoul was not present to answer the allegations and Applicant presented no proof of what may have occurred. Applicant has confirmed he has not pursued any remedies in civil or criminal court, has filed no police reports, and has not consulted an attorney as to his rights (if any) related to these allegations. Weighing the evidence as is relevant to the present case, I found Applicant's argument on this matter to be unpersuasive as to the substantiality of Dr. Faddoul's reporting. This court made no comment as to Applicant's credibility with respect to whether the allegations are true, only that Dr. Faddoul's reporting was not rendered non-substantial based on the evidence presented at trial.
Provided extensive record review, thorough discussion, and opinions based on reasonable medical probability; reports constituted substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 11Applicant's final contention is that he has not received adequate medical assessments under workers' compensation law. Applicant was examined by Orthopedic AME, Dr. Berman (Exhibits "A," "B," "C," and "D") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 43783811, 36468047, 27574571, and 51666874), Psychiatric QME, Dr. Cohen (Exhibits "G" and "W") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 45680021 and 51666875), Urological QME, Dr. Faddoul (Exhibits "E" and "F") (EAMS Doc ID Nos. 41141501 and 53358657), and Internal AME, Dr. Tirmizi (Exhibit "I") (EAMS Doc ID No. 41784749). Each
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 requires the Appeals Board to act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Board.
The Board acted timely on the petition within 60 days of transmission.
From the decision · page 2I. Former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Labor Code section 5909(b)(1)
Service of the accompanying report pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900 constitutes providing notice of transmission to the parties.
Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day, providing required notice.
From the decision · page 3case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that the parties were
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration despite alleged defective service
From the decision · page 91. Alleged Defective Service Applicant first contends defective service of the Findings and Award and Opinion on Decision. Applicant references his letter dated February 12, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78871515) wherein he alleges he received an empty envelope. The Joint Findings and Award and Joint Opinion on Decision note service on the applicant by mail on January 27, 2025. (EAMS Doc ID No. 78803295 at pg. 4 and EAMS Doc ID No. 78803196 at pg. 17). Notwithstanding the alleged state of service, the applicant was not prejudiced as he filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 21, 2025 (EAMS Doc ID No. 78894725). The merits of the Petition are discussed below.
Unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault against Dr. Faddoul were not supported by evidence and did not affect the substantiality of his medical reporting
From the decision · page 11There is simply no evidence apart from Applicant's statements that Dr. Faddoul engaged in any wrongdoing. Dr. Faddoul was not present to answer the allegations and Applicant presented no proof of what may have occurred. Applicant has confirmed he has not pursued any remedies in civil or criminal court, has filed no police reports, and has not consulted an attorney as to his rights (if any) related to these allegations. Weighing the evidence as is relevant to the present case, I found Applicant's argument on this matter to be unpersuasive as to the substantiality of Dr. Faddoul's reporting. This court made no comment as to Applicant's credibility with respect to whether the allegations are true, only that Dr. Faddoul's reporting was not rendered non-substantial based on the evidence presented at trial.
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.