What the panel ordered
May 31, 2022 Findings and Order affirmed except amended to admit reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick and exclude certain exhibits.
Petition for reconsideration granted to admit medical reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick; WCJ's May 31, 2022 Findings and Order otherwise affirmed.
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 Appeals Board granted reconsideration to admit the medical reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick, finding them admissible but not substantial medical evidence, consistent with the WCJ's analysis.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, amend the WCJ's decision to admit the reports of Robert Afra, M.D., and Jens Dimmick, M.D., and otherwise affirm the May 31, 2022 Findings and Order.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick were admitted into evidence but found not to constitute substantial medical evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This admission allowed the reports to be considered but did not change the weight of evidence as per the WCJ and Appeals Board analysis.
From the decision · page 37. The reporting of Robert Afra, M.D., is admitted into evidence but does not constitute substantial medical evidence.
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.
Reports admitted but not substantial medical evidence.
Reports admitted but not substantial medical evidence as per WCJ and Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 37. The reporting of Robert Afra, M.D., is admitted into evidence but does not constitute substantial medical evidence.
Reports admitted but not substantial medical evidence.
Reports admitted but not substantial medical evidence as per WCJ and Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 3*** 11. The reporting of Jens Dimmick (Exhibits 2 & 3) are admissible but do not constitute substantial medical evidence. Exhibits 4 through 8 are not admissible.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 4061
Reports of treating physicians are generally admissible.
The Appeals Board admitted the reports of Dr. Afra and Dr. Dimmick as treating physicians' reports.
From the decision · page 2Nevertheless, we will grant the petition for the sole purpose of admitting the medical reports of Doctors Afra and Dimmick. The reports of treating physicians are generally admissible. (Lab. Code, § 4061; Mission Linen Supply Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 65 Cal.Comp.Cases 947 (writ den.).) Moreover, while we agree with the WCJ that these reports are not substantial medical evidence and that a regular physician should be appointed if the parties cannot or will not agree to an agreed medical examiner (AME), whether or not a medical report is
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10682(c)
Whether a medical report is substantial evidence is a determination regarding the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
The Appeals Board agreed with the WCJ that the reports were not substantial medical evidence but admitted them nonetheless.
From the decision · page 3substantial evidence is a determination regarding the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10682(c).)
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.