California WCABLaw firm

D'Andre Law

D'Andre Law is named in 54 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (7), Statute of limitations (5) and Apportionment (4). They were heard most often at Oakland, then San Francisco. The firm it meets most often is Knopp Pistiolas (3).

Decisions: 54
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 11
District offices: 16

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 41 of 48 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

32 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

21 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 15
San Francisco 7
Los Angeles 6
Santa Rosa 5
Sacramento 4
Santa Ana 3
Marina del Rey 2
Pomona 2
San Bernardino 2
Van Nuys 2
Fresno 1
Lodi 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

32 for the defense
15 for the applicant
6 returned for more record

Counted over 51 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ17258260 · 2026-06-22 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the "Findings of Fact and Orders" (F&O) issued on March 18, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) panels in psychology and internal medicine were warranted and ordered the Medical Unit to issue additional panels accordingly.
The WCJ found good cause for additional panels in psychology and rheumatology, which the Appeals Board upheld, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13355568 · 2026-05-08 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded
Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ failed to determine the date of injury in accordance with section 5412 and failed to determine when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c) for its administrated claim. Accordingly, upon return, the WCJ must determine not only when CIGA had knowledge of its right to file an Application, but must also determine when applicant first suffered temporary or permanent disability from the cumulative injury in order to raise a cognizable claim for CIGA's reimbursement of benefits. In addition, the WCJ must determine when CIGA last paid benefits on companion case number ADJ2881803, to determine the applicability of section 5405(c) in the
The WCJ failed to determine the date of injury under section 5412 and when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c), thus the claim's timeliness could not be properly assessed.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ21458754 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6With these principles in mind, we observe that the process by which a party may seek the issuance of a panel of QMEs is addressed in Rule 30 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30). Rule 30 requires that represented parties submit a request for a panel of QMEs electronically to the DWC Medical Unit, and that they identify the following elements:
The panel request was valid despite an incorrect date of injury because it contained the correct claim number, which is the primary identifier for a QME panel request under Rule 30. The Appeals Board emphasized substance over form and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the date error.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ17939202 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdeferred
Determinative passage · p.7As stated in the Court's written opinion, "The court finds it appropriate to award indemnity based upon the applicant's actual lost wages during the period of her incapacity, as the wages earned during the year prior to her injury no longer reflect her true earning capacity. However, the current evidentiary record is insufficient to determine her exact earnings at that time. Applicant's reliance on the pay statement history at page 56 of Applicant's Exhibit 25, while noted, is not substantial as it is unclear as to what exact periods these payments covered. This sole issue is deferred upon further development of the record. The parties are encouraged to informally resolve this issue with jurisdiction reserved." (Opinion on Decision)
The court found that the applicant's actual lost wages during incapacity should be used, but the record was insufficient to determine exact earnings. Determination of Average Weekly Wage was deferred with jurisdiction reserved.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ16040226 · 2026-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Here, based upon our review of the evidentiary record, including the QME reports of Dr. McBride, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. McBride obtained a thorough history of the injury, and completed a comprehensive examination of applicant and review of applicable medical records. (Report, p. 7.) Further, his opinions are well-reasoned and not based upon surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. We remind defendant that although the onus is on applicant to provide substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE, the "burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700-1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Further, once this burden has been met, the burden shifts to defendant to provide evidence in rebuttal. Although defendant references reporting by Dr. Candell, no real contradictory evidence has been presented herein. The record overwhelmingly supports a finding of industrial causation. Accordingly, we agree with the PWCJ that applicant has met her burden in establishing substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine with a continuing need for future medical treatment.
The Appeals Board found that applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McBride, who provided well-reasoned opinions supported by medical history, examination, and records, and that defendant failed to present contradictory evidence sufficient to rebut this.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ8627591 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:
The WCAB found that the decedent's death was industrially related based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Schmitz and that the claim was timely filed under Labor Code section 5412, as the date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. Defendant failed to prove the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ19039281 · 2025-10-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Additionally, the WCJ's decision to invalidate panel number 7774203 to the extent it was not properly served is consistent with WCAB Rule 10625, which states in relevant part:
The panel number 7774203 was invalidated because the claim number used was incorrect and the panel was not properly served, consistent with regulatory requirements and precedent.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ12910087 · 2025-09-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on May 14, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that decedent the applicant sustained a specific injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine on February 4, 2019; that claimed that decedent sustained a cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to "other body systems" resulting in death on January 20, 2023; the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Death Case) (death case Application) was filed on January 2, 2024 and dated December 29, 2023; the death case Application was filed within one year of the date of decedent's death, but was filed more than 240 weeks after decedent's date of injury; Based on these findings of fact, the WCJ found the death claim Application barred by Labor Code2 section 5406, subdivision (b) (section 5406(b)), and "[a]ll further proceedings, including medical-legal discovery," to be moot.3
The WCJ erred in applying the specific injury date as the date of injury for the death claim; the date of injury for cumulative injury is the date the dependents knew or should have known the injury contributed to death, per Berkebile; lack of substantial medical evidence to determine cause of death requires further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15999814 · 2025-06-24 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.54. Petition contents: I. Dr. Mandell's Alternative Impairment Rating is not Substantial Medical Evidence (Listed in Both Petitions) A. Dr. Mandell did not conduct an adequate examination to justify the use of an alternative impairment rating (Only argued in the original Petition) B. Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating is speculative (Argued in both Petitions) C. Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating is based on facts no longer germane (Only argued in the Amended Petition) II. The subrosa video is relevant and was improperly excluded (Only argued in the Original Petition) III. Dr. Mandell's opinion on apportionment is substantial (Only argued in the Original Petition)
The court found Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating to be substantial medical evidence despite defendant's arguments about lack of FCE and EMG, and rejected defendant's impeachment attempts based on subrosa video.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ15040609 · 2025-04-28 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 21, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an AC HVAC Commercial Installer on June 18, 2020 (ADJ17146930) and August 25, 2020 (ADJ15040609) sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, shoulders, psyche, psychiatric, brain, lungs, bowel, bladder, upper and lower extremities, and in the form of sexual dysfunction per prior 100 percent stipulations. The WCJ found in relevant part that the court retained jurisdiction to decide the present dispute involving home modifications, and that defendant failed to timely investigate applicant's need for treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of his industrial injuries. Pursuant to reporting in evidence, the WCJ awarded home modifications in the form of a mobile home to be constructed on applicant's residential property. The WCJ further awarded interim housing in the form of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant apartment or skilled nursing facility.
The WCJ found defendant failed to timely investigate applicant's need for home modifications as medical treatment to cure or relieve effects of industrial injury, and the WCJ's award for home modifications and interim housing was supported by stipulations and evidence. The WCAB panel agreed and denied reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14902030 · 2025-01-24 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact, Award, and Order (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 16, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part in Case No ADJ14902030 that applicant, while employed during the period of November 15, 2004 through January 23, 2021 as a firefighter by defendant the City of Daly City, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the respiratory system and circulatory system/heart and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 79% in Case No ADJ14902030, and she awarded permanent disability, attorney's fees, and a life pension; and in Case No. ADJ19260558 that applicant, while employed during the period of January 1, 2005 through January 23, 2021 as a firefighter, by the City of Daly City, did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the circulatory system/heart and ordered that applicant take nothing in Case No. ADJ19260558.
The WCJ found that applicant's employment caused a single injury to the respiratory and circulatory system/heart, supported by medical evidence and employment history.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16740659 · 2024-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.11Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.
No doctor provided a clear causation opinion for lumbar spine injury. The QME's equivocal testimony requires further development for credibility determinations. The record is insufficient to determine industrial injury to lumbar spine.
Official decision · page 11 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

D'ANDRE LAW
D'ANDRE LAW LLP
D'Andre Law
D'ANDRE LAW, LLP
D'Andre Law LLP
D' ANDRE LAW
D' ANDRE LAW, LLP
D ANDRE LAW LLP

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

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 →

D'Andre Law

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

How the appealed decisions came out

32 for the defense

15 for the applicant

6 returned for more record

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ17258260 · 2026-06-22 · San Francisco District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the "Findings of Fact and Orders" (F&O) issued on March 18, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that additional qualified medical evaluator (QME) panels in psychology and internal medicine were warranted and ordered the Medical Unit to issue additional panels accordingly.

The WCJ found good cause for additional panels in psychology and rheumatology, which the Appeals Board upheld, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13355568 · 2026-05-08 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsremanded

Determinative passage · p.5Here, the WCJ failed to determine the date of injury in accordance with section 5412 and failed to determine when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c) for its administrated claim. Accordingly, upon return, the WCJ must determine not only when CIGA had knowledge of its right to file an Application, but must also determine when applicant first suffered temporary or permanent disability from the cumulative injury in order to raise a cognizable claim for CIGA's reimbursement of benefits. In addition, the WCJ must determine when CIGA last paid benefits on companion case number ADJ2881803, to determine the applicability of section 5405(c) in the

The WCJ failed to determine the date of injury under section 5412 and when CIGA last paid benefits under section 5405(c), thus the claim's timeliness could not be properly assessed.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ21458754 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venuedefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6With these principles in mind, we observe that the process by which a party may seek the issuance of a panel of QMEs is addressed in Rule 30 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 30). Rule 30 requires that represented parties submit a request for a panel of QMEs electronically to the DWC Medical Unit, and that they identify the following elements:

The panel request was valid despite an incorrect date of injury because it contained the correct claim number, which is the primary identifier for a QME panel request under Rule 30. The Appeals Board emphasized substance over form and found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the date error.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ17939202 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdeferred

Determinative passage · p.7As stated in the Court's written opinion, "The court finds it appropriate to award indemnity based upon the applicant's actual lost wages during the period of her incapacity, as the wages earned during the year prior to her injury no longer reflect her true earning capacity. However, the current evidentiary record is insufficient to determine her exact earnings at that time. Applicant's reliance on the pay statement history at page 56 of Applicant's Exhibit 25, while noted, is not substantial as it is unclear as to what exact periods these payments covered. This sole issue is deferred upon further development of the record. The parties are encouraged to informally resolve this issue with jurisdiction reserved." (Opinion on Decision)

The court found that the applicant's actual lost wages during incapacity should be used, but the record was insufficient to determine exact earnings. Determination of Average Weekly Wage was deferred with jurisdiction reserved.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ16040226 · 2026-01-06 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Here, based upon our review of the evidentiary record, including the QME reports of Dr. McBride, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. McBride obtained a thorough history of the injury, and completed a comprehensive examination of applicant and review of applicable medical records. (Report, p. 7.) Further, his opinions are well-reasoned and not based upon surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. We remind defendant that although the onus is on applicant to provide substantial evidence of injury AOE/COE, the "burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700-1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Further, once this burden has been met, the burden shifts to defendant to provide evidence in rebuttal. Although defendant references reporting by Dr. Candell, no real contradictory evidence has been presented herein. The record overwhelmingly supports a finding of industrial causation. Accordingly, we agree with the PWCJ that applicant has met her burden in establishing substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine with a continuing need for future medical treatment.

The Appeals Board found that applicant met her burden of proving injury AOE/COE based on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McBride, who provided well-reasoned opinions supported by medical history, examination, and records, and that defendant failed to present contradictory evidence sufficient to rebut this.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ8627591 · 2025-11-07 · Lodi District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2FACTS Decedent applicant died on May 22, 2021, due to heart failure with cardiomyopathy. (Applicant's Exhibit 1, Death Certificate, June 10, 2021.) Decedent had an underlying claim of cumulative injury to multiple body parts, including his feet and hypertension, during an injurious exposure period ending on May 3, 2012. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), June 4, 2025, p. 2, lines 4-8.) Qualified medical evaluator (QME) James Schmitz, M.D., evaluated applicant's death and authored two reports in evidence. (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Schmitz took a history of injury, in pertinent part, as follows:

The WCAB found that the decedent's death was industrially related based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Schmitz and that the claim was timely filed under Labor Code section 5412, as the date of injury for cumulative injury claims is the date the employee first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related. Defendant failed to prove the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ19039281 · 2025-10-28 · San Bernardino District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Additionally, the WCJ's decision to invalidate panel number 7774203 to the extent it was not properly served is consistent with WCAB Rule 10625, which states in relevant part:

The panel number 7774203 was invalidated because the claim number used was incorrect and the panel was not properly served, consistent with regulatory requirements and precedent.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ12910087 · 2025-09-02 · Oakland District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on May 14, 2025 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that decedent the applicant sustained a specific injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her lumbar spine on February 4, 2019; that claimed that decedent sustained a cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to "other body systems" resulting in death on January 20, 2023; the Application for Adjudication of Claim (Death Case) (death case Application) was filed on January 2, 2024 and dated December 29, 2023; the death case Application was filed within one year of the date of decedent's death, but was filed more than 240 weeks after decedent's date of injury; Based on these findings of fact, the WCJ found the death claim Application barred by Labor Code2 section 5406, subdivision (b) (section 5406(b)), and "[a]ll further proceedings, including medical-legal discovery," to be moot.3

The WCJ erred in applying the specific injury date as the date of injury for the death claim; the date of injury for cumulative injury is the date the dependents knew or should have known the injury contributed to death, per Berkebile; lack of substantial medical evidence to determine cause of death requires further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15999814 · 2025-06-24 · Fresno District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.54. Petition contents: I. Dr. Mandell's Alternative Impairment Rating is not Substantial Medical Evidence (Listed in Both Petitions) A. Dr. Mandell did not conduct an adequate examination to justify the use of an alternative impairment rating (Only argued in the original Petition) B. Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating is speculative (Argued in both Petitions) C. Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating is based on facts no longer germane (Only argued in the Amended Petition) II. The subrosa video is relevant and was improperly excluded (Only argued in the Original Petition) III. Dr. Mandell's opinion on apportionment is substantial (Only argued in the Original Petition)

The court found Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating to be substantial medical evidence despite defendant's arguments about lack of FCE and EMG, and rejected defendant's impeachment attempts based on subrosa video.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ15040609 · 2025-04-28 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 21, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an AC HVAC Commercial Installer on June 18, 2020 (ADJ17146930) and August 25, 2020 (ADJ15040609) sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, shoulders, psyche, psychiatric, brain, lungs, bowel, bladder, upper and lower extremities, and in the form of sexual dysfunction per prior 100 percent stipulations. The WCJ found in relevant part that the court retained jurisdiction to decide the present dispute involving home modifications, and that defendant failed to timely investigate applicant's need for treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of his industrial injuries. Pursuant to reporting in evidence, the WCJ awarded home modifications in the form of a mobile home to be constructed on applicant's residential property. The WCJ further awarded interim housing in the form of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant apartment or skilled nursing facility.

The WCJ found defendant failed to timely investigate applicant's need for home modifications as medical treatment to cure or relieve effects of industrial injury, and the WCJ's award for home modifications and interim housing was supported by stipulations and evidence. The WCAB panel agreed and denied reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14902030 · 2025-01-24 · San Francisco District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact, Award, and Order (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 16, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found in pertinent part in Case No ADJ14902030 that applicant, while employed during the period of November 15, 2004 through January 23, 2021 as a firefighter by defendant the City of Daly City, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the respiratory system and circulatory system/heart and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 79% in Case No ADJ14902030, and she awarded permanent disability, attorney's fees, and a life pension; and in Case No. ADJ19260558 that applicant, while employed during the period of January 1, 2005 through January 23, 2021 as a firefighter, by the City of Daly City, did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the circulatory system/heart and ordered that applicant take nothing in Case No. ADJ19260558.

The WCJ found that applicant's employment caused a single injury to the respiratory and circulatory system/heart, supported by medical evidence and employment history.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16740659 · 2024-10-22 · Oakland District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.11Next, the parties dispute whether applicant's injury to the low back was industrial. No doctor has provided a clear opinion explaining causation to the low back. At one point, the QME concludes that there is no way to answer that question. The QME failed to adequately explain how and why he was incapable of answering the question. It further appears that the QME failed to consider the proper legal standard of causation in workers' compensation, which is contributory causation. The September 13, 2022 injury need not be the sole cause of injury to the low back. It is sufficient if the September 13, 2022 injury aggravated or exacerbated prior injury to the low back.

No doctor provided a clear causation opinion for lumbar spine injury. The QME's equivocal testimony requires further development for credibility determinations. The record is insufficient to determine industrial injury to lumbar spine.

Official decision · page 11 →