ADJ10309928 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the August 10, 2023 Findings and Award is denied.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the August 10, 2023 Findings and Award denying the petition, which was reviewed and denied by the WCAB panel.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 10, 2022.

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedback · bilateral shoulders · bilateral wrists/hands · elbows · knees · ankles/feet · dental

The WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists/hands, elbows, knees, ankles/feet, and dental issues, but not to respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, psyche, or industrially-related diabetes, based on credible testimony and medical opinions including AME Dr. Angerman's report.

From the decision · page 16Applicant was observed at trial and found to be a credible witness. Based on Applicant's testimony and the opinions of AME Dr. Angerman, and Dr. Shames, the Court finds Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, elbows, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, and bilateral ankles. No injury is found to Applicant's respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, industrially related diabetes, or psyche.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant's counsel informed defendant and the AME at the AME's prior deposition that a vocational rehabilitation report was pending and would be provided to the AME, and no timely objection was made by defendant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact led to the finding that the provision of the vocational rehabilitation report to the AME was not improper and the AME report was not stricken.

From the decision · page 9This is where the present matter and the facts of Trapero are distinguishable. In Trapero opposing counsel and the AME were provided the document without any prior indication of it with no agreement. In the present case, applicant's counsel at the AME's prior deposition informed defendant and the AME that he was procuring a vocational rehabilitation report which the doctor indicated he would like to review. No objection to the provision of the report was made, just as no objection was made to the provision of other reporting as discussed at the deposition. Defendant's prior counsel, having not objected to the provision of the report to the AME when it was discussed at the deposition effectively waived their right to later object to the provision of the report after it was obtained.

Applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists/hands, elbows, knees, ankles/feet, and dental issues, but not to respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, psyche, or industrially-related diabetes.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supported the finding of compensable injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

From the decision · page 16Applicant was observed at trial and found to be a credible witness. Based on Applicant's testimony and the opinions of AME Dr. Angerman, and Dr. Shames, the Court finds Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of his employment to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, elbows, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists, and bilateral ankles. No injury is found to Applicant's respiratory system, skin, hypertension, sleep disorder, industrially related diabetes, or psyche.

AME Dr. Angerman found no apportionment to non-industrial causation and agreed with vocational rehabilitation consultant Laura Wilson that the applicant is unable to compete in the open labor market.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the finding of total permanent disability and need for further medical treatment.

From the decision · page 15AME Dr. Angerman's reporting determined that absent any non-industrial injury, Applicant's complaints to his back, bilateral shoulders, elbows, wrists and hands, knees, and ankles and feet are industrial in nature based upon his review of the medical record and examination of Applicant. (Exhibit 2, page 33).

ADJ10309928 · November 6, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page