What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant after WCJ found industrial injury to Applicant; WCAB panel denies reconsideration and adopts WCJ report
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 found the applicant's testimony credible and relied on the PQME Dr. Wolfson's report, which matched the applicant's injury mechanism, to find an industrial injury despite inconsistent histories in other reports.
From the decision · page 5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony describing injury mechanism as pulling down on a metal handle with both hands causing left shoulder pain
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ and WCAB relied on this credible testimony to find an industrial injury despite inconsistent histories in other reports.
From the decision · page 5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.
PQME Dr. Wolfson's report diagnosing an industrially related rotator cuff tear based on applicant's history matching her testimony
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ relied on Dr. Wolfson's report to support the finding of industrial injury.
From the decision · page 5The parties utilized Dr. Wolfson as the PQME. Dr. Wolfson examined applicant on 2/23/21. Applicant gave a history of the injury occurring while she was pulling on a fifth wheel gear. The report describes that the fifth wheel gear was not working properly so she needed to do it manually which required applicant to pull with both hands on a long metal stick. Dr. Wolfson diagnosed her with an industrially related rotator cuff tear. At that time Dr. Wolfson had not reviewed any medical reports and based his opinion on applicant's statements. Dr. Wolfson later reviewed several medical reports and continued to opine that applicant's claim of injury was industrially related. Defendant deposed Dr. Wolfson on 9/24/21 and pointed out the various histories as noted above. Dr. Wolfson deferred to the trier of fact if the incident occurred as alleged.
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.
Diagnosed industrially related rotator cuff tear based on applicant's history; maintained opinion after reviewing medical reports; deferred to trier of fact on injury occurrence.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Wolfson's report matching the applicant's credible testimony to find industrial injury.
From the decision · page 5The parties utilized Dr. Wolfson as the PQME. Dr. Wolfson examined applicant on 2/23/21. Applicant gave a history of the injury occurring while she was pulling on a fifth wheel gear. The report describes that the fifth wheel gear was not working properly so she needed to do it manually which required applicant to pull with both hands on a long metal stick. Dr. Wolfson diagnosed her with an industrially related rotator cuff tear. At that time Dr. Wolfson had not reviewed any medical reports and based his opinion on applicant's statements. Dr. Wolfson later reviewed several medical reports and continued to opine that applicant's claim of injury was industrially related. Defendant deposed Dr. Wolfson on 9/24/21 and pointed out the various histories as noted above. Dr. Wolfson deferred to the trier of fact if the incident occurred as alleged.
Reported injury to shoulder while trying to pull a lever to detach trailer, consistent with applicant's testimony.
Supports the finding of industrial injury consistent with applicant's testimony.
From the decision · page 5Applicant presented at Wellspace Health on 8/10/20. The report indicates an injury to the right arm. (Exhibit E) On 9/21/20 she was seen by Dr. Nkadi; it was reported that applicant injured her shoulder while she was trying to pull a lever to detach the trailer that was attached to the truck. Applicant returned to Wellspace on 10/16/20, it is reported that applicant injured her left arm while lifting a heavy object. On 11/30/20 the records note that applicant injured her left shoulder when she was carrying cargo out of a truck.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312
Credibility determinations by WCJ are given great weight when the WCJ observed the demeanor of witnesses (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312)
The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations because the WCJ observed the witness's demeanor and found no substantial evidence to reject it.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determination(s) great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness(es). (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(s). (Id.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony matching PQME Dr. Wolfson's injury mechanism
From the decision · page 5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.
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.