What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant after WCJ Findings of Fact and Award dated 4/26/2022; WCAB panel denies the Petition for Reconsideration on 7/5/2022.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 14, 2022.
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 and WCAB found that Applicant met her burden of proof for injury AOE/COE based on credible testimony and the entire medical record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee.
From the decision · page 5To the extent that the report is legible it is clear that based on its content and Applicant's testimony, Dr. Bady is not a workers compensation doctor. The records of Dr. Bady are only a small portion of the medical reports in evidence. The determination of AOE/COE was based on the entire record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee who is a workers compensation doctor and who in fact reviewed the medical reports of Dr. Bady along with a numerous medical records. The entire record supports the finding that Applicant met her burden of proof of establishing injury AOE/COE regarding injuries she sustained to her bilateral upper extremities, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, right leg and right knee on 2/16/2020.
The WCJ found that Defendant failed to establish the post-termination defense because Applicant credibly testified she reported injuries while still employed before termination.
From the decision · page 5Defendant failed to establish that Applicant's claim was barred by the affirmative defense of post- termination. This finding was based on the credible and unrebutted testimony of the Applicant, the testimony of the defense witness, Menchie DaSalla and the entire record.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant credibly testified she reported injuries to her supervisor a few days after the 2/16/2020 incident while still employed before termination.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credible testimony supported denial of Defendant's post-termination defense and established injury AOE/COE.
Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee reviewed medical records and supported finding of injury AOE/COE.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The QME report was relied upon to establish injury causation and compensability.
From the decision · page 5To the extent that the report is legible it is clear that based on its content and Applicant's testimony, Dr. Bady is not a workers compensation doctor. The records of Dr. Bady are only a small portion of the medical reports in evidence. The determination of AOE/COE was based on the entire record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee who is a workers compensation doctor and who in fact reviewed the medical reports of Dr. Bady along with a numerous medical records. The entire record supports the finding that Applicant met her burden of proof of establishing injury AOE/COE regarding injuries she sustained to her bilateral upper extremities, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, right leg and right knee on 2/16/2020.
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.
Reviewed medical reports including those of Dr. Bady and supported finding of injury AOE/COE.
The entire record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee supported the finding that Applicant met her burden of proof of injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 5To the extent that the report is legible it is clear that based on its content and Applicant's testimony, Dr. Bady is not a workers compensation doctor. The records of Dr. Bady are only a small portion of the medical reports in evidence. The determination of AOE/COE was based on the entire record including the Panel QME report of Dr. Sang Lee who is a workers compensation doctor and who in fact reviewed the medical reports of Dr. Bady along with a numerous medical records. The entire record supports the finding that Applicant met her burden of proof of establishing injury AOE/COE regarding injuries she sustained to her bilateral upper extremities, cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, right shoulder, right leg and right knee on 2/16/2020.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
Burden of proof for injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)
Applicant met burden of proof based on credible testimony and medical evidence including QME report.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defense witness Menchie DaSalla's testimony did not rebut Applicant's credible testimony
From the decision · page 5Defendant failed to establish that Applicant's claim was barred by the affirmative defense of post- termination. This finding was based on the credible and unrebutted testimony of the Applicant, the testimony of the defense witness, Menchie DaSalla and the entire record.
Applicant's credible testimony that she reported injuries to her supervisor a few days after the incident
Records of Applicant's Primary Care Physician Dr. Bady were silent on work-related injury but were not determinative due to communication issues and the presence of other medical evidence
From the decision · page 4Next Defendant points out that the records of Applicant's Primary Care Physician, Dr. Bady, are silent with regard to a work-related injury and should be given great weight regarding injury AOE/COE. These records were introduced by Defendant as Exhibit B and consist of three partially legible progress notes for dates of service 3/6/2020, 5/20/2020 and 8/3/2020. Applicant testified that Dr. Bady had been her primary care physician for over 5 years. She also testified that there were communication problems between her and Dr. Bady and when they spoke in English they often needed an interpreter as English was neither ones first language. Further Applicant testified
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.