What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's heart trouble developed and manifested during employment as a correctional officer interacting with inmates.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code Sections 3212.2 and 3212.10, which shifted the burden to defendant to rebut.
From the decision · page 4Prior to his employment by CDCR, the applicant did not have identified heart
disease. He was not informed of having childhood murmur. He passed a US
Marine Corp induction exam in 1975. the applicant has received his medical care at
Kaiser Bakersfield. He has had annual wellness examinations.... In 2005, the applicant began having shortness of breath and chest pains. His primary doctor
referred him to a cardiologist who diagnosed a heart valve problem. On
September19, 2015 [sic]2, the applicant's aortic valve was replaced with a
mechanical valve. Hehas taken warfarin since. He was restricted from duty for
eight weeks after the surgery. (Joint Ex. 2 Page 2)
Dr. Caren also opined that some people can go through their whole lives and never require treatment
for a bicuspid aortic valve. (Joint Ex. 3 Page 12 Lines 8 - 10) Applicant's first need for medical
treatment and first disability resulting from bicuspid aortic valve occurred in 2005 when he was
forty-nine (49) years old and had been employed by Defendant for just over eleven (11) years.
Therefore, his heart problem in the form of need for medical treatment and being disabled after
surgery developed and manifested while he was working as a correctional officer
Defendant presented no evidence to rebut the presumption that the heart trouble was caused by a nonindustrial event.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Defendant's failure to rebut the presumption resulted in the presumption being upheld in favor of applicant.
From the decision · page 1For the reasons stated in the report and opinion, we agree with the WCJ that applicant met
his burden to prove that the presumption pursuant to Labor Code sections 3212.2 and 3212.10
applies based on the preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705.) Once the
presumption is established, the burden shifts to defendant to rebut that presumption. The employer
may only rebut the presumption by proving that some contemporaneous non-work related event
was the sole cause of the heart trouble. (Jackson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 133
Cal.App.4th 965 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1413].) Effectively this means that the employer can only
rebut the presumption with proof of causation by a nonindustrial event occurring at the same time
that the heart trouble developed or manifested itself. Defendant has presented no evidence of this.
In fact, the only evidence in the record is the opinion of cardiology panel qualified medical
examiner (PQME) Jeffrey F. Caren, M.D.
Applicant has 59% permanent partial disability as a result of his industrial injury, with no apportionment allowed under Labor Code Section 4663(e).
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact determined the disability rating and award amount in favor of applicant.
From the decision · page 10APPLICANT PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS
59% PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY AFTER APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT AS A