What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was reviewed by the WCJ and the WCAB panel.
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 WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and the evidence preponderates against a specific low back injury as the cause of Petitioner's symptoms. The medical opinions of QME Dr. Darakjian, supported by diagnostic testing and examination, found no objective evidence of lumbar injury causally related to the industrial accident, while Dr. Scheinberg's opinions were inconsistent and speculative.
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, we will deny reconsideration. We further note that, while there is evidence of low back impairment, the evidence preponderates against a specific low back injury as the cause.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight by the Board.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ observed the demeanor of the witness and found no substantial evidence to reject the credibility determinations, supporting denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
Diagnostic testing and medical examination showed no objective evidence of lumbar spine injury related to the industrial accident.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This medical evidence contradicted Petitioner's testimony and supported the conclusion that the lumbar spine was not injured in the industrial accident.
From the decision · page 13The second problem with the argument of the pending petition is that Petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with the diagnostic results. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2; Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2. Likewise, Dr. Scheinberg's speculation that Petitioner's lower back pain might be the compensable consequence of alerted posture or gait from her hip and knee injuries was falsified on examination. Defendant's Exhibit H: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/30/2019 pp. 5-6. And, furthermore, the later theory that Petitioner's hip pain was radicular pain from an industrially injured lower back did not survive examination and testing. Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2.
Dr. Scheinberg's medical opinions were inconsistent and speculative over time.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board found Dr. Scheinberg's migratory opinions less credible than the consistent and thorough opinions of QME Dr. Darakjian, supporting denial of compensability for lumbar injury.
From the decision · page 13The second problem with the argument of the pending petition is that Petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with the diagnostic results. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2; Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2. Likewise, Dr. Scheinberg's speculation that Petitioner's lower back pain might be the compensable consequence of alerted posture or gait from her hip and knee injuries was falsified on examination. Defendant's Exhibit H: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/30/2019 pp. 5-6. And, furthermore, the later theory that Petitioner's hip pain was radicular pain from an industrially injured lower back did not survive examination and testing. Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2.
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.
No objective findings of lumbar spine injury related to the industrial accident; MRI showed degenerative changes only; examination was unremarkable; no evidence of radiculopathy or nerve impingement; no ratable impairment of lumbar spine.
Dr. Darakjian's consistent and thorough examination and review of diagnostic tests found no evidence of industrial injury to the lumbar spine, supporting denial of compensability for lumbar injury.
From the decision · page 8Currently, this MRI scan does not show any acute findings that would indicate any industrially caused injury. The findings are all degenerative in nature. There is no disc herniation. There is no fracture. There is no evidence of nerve impingement to suggest any treatment or work disabling injury. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2.
Initially diagnosed lumbar myofascial pain and possible radiculopathy; later opined lumbar spine injury might be industrially related; opinions were inconsistent and speculative over time.
Dr. Scheinberg's opinions were migratory and speculative, lacking consistent support from diagnostic evidence, thus given less weight than Dr. Darakjian's consistent findings.
From the decision · page 13The second problem with the argument of the pending petition is that Petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with the diagnostic results. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2; Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2. Likewise, Dr. Scheinberg's speculation that Petitioner's lower back pain might be the compensable consequence of alerted posture or gait from her hip and knee injuries was falsified on examination. Defendant's Exhibit H: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/30/2019 pp. 5-6. And, furthermore, the later theory that Petitioner's hip pain was radicular pain from an industrially injured lower back did not survive examination and testing. Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379
The relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions.
The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and relied on the consistent opinion of QME Dr. Darakjian over the inconsistent opinions of Dr. Scheinberg.
From the decision · page 1We observe, moreover, it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319
The WCJ's credibility determinations are entitled to great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness.
The Board adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations in denying the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determinations
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
Diagnostic results inconsistent with Petitioner's testimony of lumbar injury
From the decision · page 13The second problem with the argument of the pending petition is that Petitioner's testimony was inconsistent with the diagnostic results. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2; Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2. Likewise, Dr. Scheinberg's speculation that Petitioner's lower back pain might be the compensable consequence of alerted posture or gait from her hip and knee injuries was falsified on examination. Defendant's Exhibit H: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/30/2019 pp. 5-6. And, furthermore, the later theory that Petitioner's hip pain was radicular pain from an industrially injured lower back did not survive examination and testing. Defendant's Exhibit K: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 10/09/2020 p. 2.
Consistent and thorough medical examination and diagnostic testing by QME Dr. Darakjian
From the decision · page 8Currently, this MRI scan does not show any acute findings that would indicate any industrially caused injury. The findings are all degenerative in nature. There is no disc herniation. There is no fracture. There is no evidence of nerve impingement to suggest any treatment or work disabling injury. Defendant's Exhibit G: QME Report of Hrair E. Darakjian, M.D. 1/28/2019 p. 2.
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.