What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the March 26, 2024 Findings and Order denying the petition.
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 decision was based on the credible testimony of the applicant and substantial medical evidence from panel QMEs Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri, supporting injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the teeth/dental and need for future medical care. Defendant's challenge to the substantiality of the medical evidence was rejected.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and a need for future medical to the teeth/dental based upon reporting from panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony was accepted by the WCJ as a basis for the decision.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility determinations by the WCJ are entitled to great weight and were not disturbed due to lack of contrary substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that the WCJ indicated in a March 26, 2024 Joint Opinion on Decision (OOD) that his decision was based upon the credible testimony of applicant. (OOD, p. 1.) Credibility determinations of the WCJ, as the trier of fact, are entitled to great weight based upon the WCJ's opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Further, a WCJ's credibility determination may
Medical reports and deposition testimony of QMEs Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri supported injury arising out of and in the course of employment to teeth/dental and need for future medical care.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These reports provided substantial medical evidence relied upon by the WCJ to find injury AOE/COE and need for future medical care.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and a need for future medical to the teeth/dental based upon reporting from panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri.
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.
Agreed injury to teeth/dental arising out of and in the course of employment, with at least 1% aggravation industrially caused.
Supported the finding of injury AOE/COE to teeth/dental with medical reports and deposition testimony.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and a need for future medical to the teeth/dental based upon reporting from panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri.
Agreed injury to teeth/dental arising out of and in the course of employment, emphasizing facial pain as a significant component.
Supported the finding of injury AOE/COE to teeth/dental with medical reports.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found injury arising out of and/or in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and a need for future medical to the teeth/dental based upon reporting from panel Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), Drs. Hamlet Davari and David Abri.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence, which means proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, not certain or scientific certainty.
Applied to the evidence of injury to teeth/dental and need for future medical care.
From the decision · page 2It is well established that the employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a) & 3202.5.) However, the Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.`" (McAllister v.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312
A WCJ's decision must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record, meaning evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Applied to the credibility of applicant's testimony and medical reports of QMEs.
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that the WCJ indicated in a March 26, 2024 Joint Opinion on Decision (OOD) that his decision was based upon the credible testimony of applicant. (OOD, p. 1.) Credibility determinations of the WCJ, as the trier of fact, are entitled to great weight based upon the WCJ's opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Further, a WCJ's credibility determination may
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that the WCJ indicated in a March 26, 2024 Joint Opinion on Decision (OOD) that his decision was based upon the credible testimony of applicant. (OOD, p. 1.) Credibility determinations of the WCJ, as the trier of fact, are entitled to great weight based upon the WCJ's opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their statements in connection with their manner on the stand. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Further, a WCJ's credibility determination may
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.