What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME Dr. Hamada found industrial causation for cervical spine and right wrist based on full history and review, and did not change opinion after further records and cross-examination.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provided substantial medical evidence for finding of industrial injury to these parts.
From the decision · page 12sole or exclusive cause. Injury AOE/COE should be found to the applicant's cervical spine and
right wrist.
Applicant's testimony found credible by WCJ and Board; no contrary evidence of considerable substance presented.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility supported applicant's burden of proof for industrial causation.
From the decision · page 10The applicant has met her burden of proof under Labor Code § 3202.5 in this regard. She
testified in a credible fashion throughout the trial, and this court found such. The WCJ's findings
of credibility should be rejected only on the basis of contrary evidence of considerable substance.
Lamb v. WCAB (1974) 39 CCC 310, 314; Western Electric Co. v. WCAB (Smith) (1979) 44 CCC
1145, 1152. Here there was no such contrary evidence presented, and the board should defer to
this WCJ's findings of credibility. Fernandez v. WCAB (1999) 64 CCC 440 (writ denied);
Fremont Unified School District v. WCAB (Russo) (2001) 66 CCC 1209 (writ denied); Russell v.
WCAB (2013) 78 CCC 1350 (writ denied); County of San Diego v. WCAB (Llamas) (2015) 80
CCC 221 (writ denied).
Although there are instances when careful cross-examination may be used to challenge an
applicant's credibility, which also may be impeached by the medical record, see Kocalis v.
WCAB (1997) 62 CCC 1299 (writ denied); Garcia v. WCAB (2014) 79 CCC 356 (writ denied),
such is not the case here. It is one thing if the PQME did not have all medical records and was
unaware of the nonindustrial injuries, but it is another issue altogether when he does. In this case,
PQME did not find industrial causation for thoracic spine or right upper extremity and was aware of all relevant nonindustrial injuries.
Favours Defendant prevailed
No substantial evidence supported CT injury to these parts; claim denied for them.
From the decision · page 12There is no conclusion by the PQME that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her
thoracic spine or her right upper extremity. In fact he is aware of not only other nonindustrial
injuries, but he is also aware of the motor vehicle accident on September 18, 2020 and the
injuries it caused to these parts of body. The PQME does not leave the door open for these parts
of body; his reports and conclusions are specific to the cervical spine and right wrist in finding
injury AOE/COE. There is no substantial evidence, let alone any evidence at all, supporting a
finding of a CT injury to these parts of body.