What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant after Findings and Award/Order
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 Petition for Reconsideration was denied based on the WCJ's report and the substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation of death.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, except for the recommendation that we dismiss defendant's petition, we will deny reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Schmitz's medical opinion that Decedent's long work hours contributed to his hypertension and subarachnoid hemorrhage, causing his death.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This opinion constituted substantial medical evidence supporting industrial causation of death, leading to denial of Petition for Reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3James Schmitz, M.D. serves as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator designated to evaluate whether Decedent's death was industrially related. The parties served Dr. Schmitz a copy of their respective cover letters, medical records and deposition transcript of Decedent's widow, dated 3/28/2018, and son dated 1/21/2018, prior to issuance of his initial report. (Joint Ex 101, p. 2) Dr. Schmitz incorporated information from Decedent's family deposition transcripts into his findings. Decedent's widow testified Decedent's worked 60 or more hours per week in the 2 year period from 2015-2016, with only 1 day off per week. (Joint Ex 101, p. 6) While Dr. Schmitz was not served with a copy
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.
Dr. Schmitz opined within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Decedent's long work hours contributed to his hypertension, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and death, concluding the death arose out of employment.
Dr. Schmitz reviewed medical records, family depositions, and medical literature, concluding the industrial causation of death due to long work hours causing hypertension and subarachnoid hemorrhage.
From the decision · page 3James Schmitz, M.D. serves as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator designated to evaluate whether Decedent's death was industrially related. The parties served Dr. Schmitz a copy of their respective cover letters, medical records and deposition transcript of Decedent's widow, dated 3/28/2018, and son dated 1/21/2018, prior to issuance of his initial report. (Joint Ex 101, p. 2) Dr. Schmitz incorporated information from Decedent's family deposition transcripts into his findings. Decedent's widow testified Decedent's worked 60 or more hours per week in the 2 year period from 2015-2016, with only 1 day off per week. (Joint Ex 101, p. 6) While Dr. Schmitz was not served with a copy
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Fogarty v. Department of Industrial Relations (1928) 206 Cal. 102, 110; G. L. Eastman Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1921) 186 Cal. 587, 594; Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 492, 496; Smith v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 588, 592.
An employee's underlying medical condition or disease is compensable if aggravated or accelerated by work, even if not caused by employment.
Dr. Schmitz's medical opinions demonstrate Decedent's industrially aggravated hypertension contributed to his death, supporting compensability.
From the decision · page 12Therefore, contrary to the Petitions supposition, the evidentiary record does not support the averment hat Dr. Schmitz could not define the legal term "proximate cause" rather declined to so. Even though an employee's underlying medical condition or disease was not caused by employment, the disability or death is compensable if such disease is aggravated or accelerated by work. (Fogarty v. Department of Industrial Relations (1928) 206 Cal. 102, 110; G. L. Eastman Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1921) 186 Cal. 587, 594; Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 492, 496; Smith v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1969) 71 Cal.2d 588, 592.) Death attributable to both industrial and nonindustrial causes may support a death claim, and industrial causation has been shown in an array of scenarios where a work injury contributes to a subsequent nonindustrial injury. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Schmitz's medical opinions and review of family depositions and medical records
From the decision · page 3James Schmitz, M.D. serves as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator designated to evaluate whether Decedent's death was industrially related. The parties served Dr. Schmitz a copy of their respective cover letters, medical records and deposition transcript of Decedent's widow, dated 3/28/2018, and son dated 1/21/2018, prior to issuance of his initial report. (Joint Ex 101, p. 2) Dr. Schmitz incorporated information from Decedent's family deposition transcripts into his findings. Decedent's widow testified Decedent's worked 60 or more hours per week in the 2 year period from 2015-2016, with only 1 day off per week. (Joint Ex 101, p. 6) While Dr. Schmitz was not served with a copy
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.