ADJ13582881 · June 26, 2026

The Appeals Board found substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to the low back based on the entire medical record and credible applicant testimony, favoring the treating physician's opinions over the PQME Dr. Shah's contrary opinion.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of March 16, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as an assistant manager applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of a hernia and to the low back, causing the need for further medical treatment. Industrial injury to the hernia had been accepted by the defendant, but injury to the low back was contested. All other issues including date of injury, temporary disability, and permanent disability were deferred.

CT scan showed stenosis and neural foraminal narrowing at L5-S1 consistent with radiculopathy.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the finding of industrial injury to the low back.

From the decision · page 4A further CT scan of the pelvis area was done on September 14, 2020 (Ex. 9) ordered by Dr. Irani, stating a history of "right groin pain for 8 months. Pain and difficulty urinating and defecating." This report stated, in the "Bones" section of the Findings: "Stenosis of the right subarticular recess and neural foramina at L5-S1 secondary to endplate and facet osteophytic hypertrophy. Small annular bulge. The left neural foramina is unremarkable. L4-L5 exhibits no gross abnormalities."

Applicant's credible testimony that pain persisted after hernia surgery and was later attributed to back injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Corroborated medical findings and supported industrial causation.

From the decision · page 9The applicant, who was a credible witness, testified on re-cross examination that he complained about his pain condition to all of his doctors without relating it to a specific cause, because he did not know the cause himself, he just felt the pain. His doctors initially told him it was due to his obvious hernia condition, and he believed them. However, his pain did not change substantially after he had the surgery to repair his hernia condition, and it was not until he had further tests then that his doctors told him that he had pain coming from his back. His doctors did not realize he had also injured his back until after the hernia was repaired. (12/22/25 Minutes and Summary of Evidence p. 3 l. 21 p. 4 l. 8).

Found industrial injury to the low back based on CT scan showing stenosis and foraminal narrowing at L5-S1 and clinical findings consistent with radiculopathy; opinion favored over PQME Dr. Shah's contrary opinion.

The Appeals Board found Dr. Nadjmabadi's opinion more persuasive and substantial evidence supporting industrial causation of the back injury.

From the decision · page 4No subsequent report from Dr. Irani was included in the exhibits for trial, but the applicant testified that Dr. Irani told him that this scan showed that his pain was actually from injury to the back (12/22/25 Minutes and Summary of Evidence p. 2 l. 22-23, p. 3 l. 1-4, 8-9). He was then evaluated by orthopedist Dr. Esmail Nadjmabadi on October 15, 2020 (Ex. 14), following this CT scan. Dr. Nadjmabadi noted the applicant's ongoing right inguinal and right lower extremity pain, and that the CT scan showed "articular recess with foraminal stenosis and an annular bulge" at L5-S1. Based on his examination and the results of the CT scan, he found:

Did not find industrial injury to the back, citing late reporting of back pain and lack of clinical correlation despite MRI and EMG findings; opinion rejected in favor of treating physician's findings.

The Appeals Board rejected Dr. Shah's opinion due to inconsistencies in history and ignoring earlier documented pain, finding it less persuasive than Dr. Nadjmabadi's.

From the decision · page 5The applicant was evaluated by Orthopedic PQME Dr. Jayprakash Shah on March 23, 2022 (Joint Ex. 2). In the Occupational History section of his report, he states that the applicant had been off work since the injury, which was implied in other reports but not made clear (Id. p. 3). In the discussion section, he notes that the applicant began working for the company in Arizona, moved to California where he was promoted to general manager in charge of several stores, but then the company was sold to Valvoline. There were "some inter- personal issues" and he was demoted to assistant manager/mechanic. The applicant sued the company as a result and that suit remained in litigation (Id. p. 6).

LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627

Decision must be supported by substantial evidence based on the entire record.

The Appeals Board considered the entire medical record and testimony to find substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to the low back.

From the decision · page 3medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence. (Le Vesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals

Labor Code Section 3202

Evidence and applicable law should be liberally construed in favor of providing benefits to the applicant.

In case of doubt, benefits are construed in favor of the applicant.

From the decision · page 11As a last point, though it seems to this judge that the evidence submitted in this matter solidly supports a finding of industrial injury to the applicant's low back, if there is doubt in that area, the evidence and applicable law should be liberally construed in favor of providing benefits to the applicant under Labor Code Section 3202.

Applicant's credible testimony about pain and treatment history, including initial belief pain was from hernia and later discovery of back injury.

From the decision · page 9The applicant, who was a credible witness, testified on re-cross examination that he complained about his pain condition to all of his doctors without relating it to a specific cause, because he did not know the cause himself, he just felt the pain. His doctors initially told him it was due to his obvious hernia condition, and he believed them. However, his pain did not change substantially after he had the surgery to repair his hernia condition, and it was not until he had further tests then that his doctors told him that he had pain coming from his back. His doctors did not realize he had also injured his back until after the hernia was repaired. (12/22/25 Minutes and Summary of Evidence p. 3 l. 21 p. 4 l. 8).

Medical records showing complex hernia surgery and subsequent imaging revealing lumbar spine abnormalities consistent with radiculopathy.

From the decision · page 3As a result of the injury, the applicant developed severe pain and swelling in his right abdomen and groin (Joint Ex. 16 p. 4) and was diagnosed with right inguinal hernia (Id. p. 5). The hernia injury was accepted and treated, injury to the back was denied when it was raised later (Ex. E). He ultimately had hernia surgery performed by Dr. Harmuz Irani on March 11, 2020. From Dr. Irani's operative report (Joint Ex. 17), the applicant had a complex hernia condition, requiring repair of a large direct hernia and a small indirect hernia on the right side, and separate repair of a smaller direct hernia on the left side with a very large indirect hernia on that side that extended into the scrotum (Id. p. 2-3).