California WCABPanel decision

ADJ11847265 · June 27, 2022

Petition for Reconsideration denied; original decision that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to low back and lower extremities is affirmed.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 2
Authorities named: 1
District office: Oxnard

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied; original decision that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to low back and lower extremities is affirmed.

Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on April 6, 2022, was filed by applicant and denied by the WCAB panel on June 27, 2022.

Read the official decision →

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/COEDefendant prevailedlow back · lower extremities

Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for injury AOE/COE due to lack of substantial evidence and questionable credibility, including failure to disclose prior injury and denial of reports into evidence.

The facts that decided it

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

Reports from QME Dr. Fonseca were not offered into evidence and thus not considered.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of substantial evidence to prove injury AOE/COE.

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 →

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.

QMERejected

Deferred determination of injury AOE/COE to the trier of fact; reports not offered into evidence.

Reports were not offered into evidence; doctor deferred opinion to trier of fact.

From the decision · page 6Petitioner was ultimately evaluated by PQME Fonseca. His reports were not offered into evidence by either party (Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence, 9/28/21). However, the parties took the deposition of Dr. Fonseca on 5/4/20 (Defense M). The doctor testified that in regards to his initial evaluation of 12/4/19, Petitioner did not mention that he had a preexisting back injury (Page 7, lines 1-25, page 8 lines 1-4). Dr. Fonseca agreed that Petitioner has a credibility problem and deferred the determination of injury AOE/COE to the trier of fact (page 14, lines 8-20).

otherRejected

Found alleged back injuries to be industrially caused but based on inaccurate medical history.

Opinion based on substantially false and inaccurate medical history.

From the decision · page 8Again, Petitioner has asserted that the Court didn't consider the reports of Dr. Fonseca in crafting its determination. Petitioner is correct. The Court cannot consider documents that are not part of the evidentiary record. Dr. Fonseca's reports were not offered. It is unknown why Petitioner did not offer said reports into evidence. It could have been an oversight on Petitioner's part. In any event, the failure of Petition to offer Dr. Fonseca's original QME report into evidence is not significant considering he deferred his opinion to the trier of fact when his deposition was taken. Based on the evidentiary record as presented by the parties, there is no substantial evidence of industrial causation. Dr. Haronian's opinion was based on a substantially false and inaccurate medical history3, and Dr. Fonseca deferred his opinion to the trier of fact.

ADJ11847265 · June 27, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page