What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on November 29, 2022, which found applicant sustained a cumulative injury causing 70% permanent disability.
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 DEU rater's rating more persuasive and consistent with Dr. Brose's medical opinions, which were supported by substantial evidence, and found no apportionment.
From the decision · page 8William Brose, M.D. is the parties' panel qualified medical evaluator (hereinafter referred to as "PQME") in this matter. Dr. Brose evaluated applicant on 04/30/2019, 02/24/2021 and 03/01/2022, took a thorough history, and reviewed various medical reports and records, and authored five reports. In his reports of 02/24/2021 and 03/01/2022, Dr. Brose opined applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury from December 2017 into January 2018 to her right thumb, right wrist, right elbow, right upper extremity, and left wrist. (Applicant's Exhibit 3 at pages 1, 10; Applicant's Exhibit 4 at pages 1, 10. In his 03/01/2022 report, Dr. Browse provided extensive impairment factors and opined to no apportionment. (Applicant's Exhibit 4 at pages 1, 10 § 14)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Brose's multiple evaluations and detailed reports supporting cumulative trauma injury and 37% whole person impairment with no apportionment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical evidence was relied upon by the WCJ to find 70% permanent disability and no apportionment.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claimed injury to her right upper extremity nerves, right elbow, right wrist, right thumb, and left wrist, while employed by defendant as a as a sheriff technician during the period from December 1, 2017, through April 12, 2018. Applicant was evaluated by QME Dr. Brose on April 30, 2019. Dr. Brose examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. The doctor determined that applicant's condition had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) status and he re-evaluated applicant on February 24, 2021. Dr. Brose stated that applicant's right hand had reached MMI status, but as a result of her left hand injury she remained temporarily totally disabled. (App. Exh. 3, William G. Brose, M.D., February 24, 2021, p. 11.) Dr. Brose examined applicant again on March 1, 2022. After re-examining applicant, taking an interim history, and reviewing additional medical records, he diagnosed: 1. Chronic bilateral right greater than left hand and wrist pain and numbness. 2. DeQuervain's tenosynovitis right arm. 3.
Favours Applicant prevailed
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.
Applicant sustained cumulative trauma injury from December 2017 into January 2018 to right thumb, right wrist, right elbow, right upper extremity, and left wrist causing 37% whole person impairment with no apportionment.
Dr. Brose examined applicant multiple times, took history, reviewed records, and provided detailed impairment ratings consistent with AMA Guides and no apportionment.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claimed injury to her right upper extremity nerves, right elbow, right wrist, right thumb, and left wrist, while employed by defendant as a as a sheriff technician during the period from December 1, 2017, through April 12, 2018. Applicant was evaluated by QME Dr. Brose on April 30, 2019. Dr. Brose examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. The doctor determined that applicant's condition had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) status and he re-evaluated applicant on February 24, 2021. Dr. Brose stated that applicant's right hand had reached MMI status, but as a result of her left hand injury she remained temporarily totally disabled. (App. Exh. 3, William G. Brose, M.D., February 24, 2021, p. 11.) Dr. Brose examined applicant again on March 1, 2022. After re-examining applicant, taking an interim history, and reviewing additional medical records, he diagnosed: 1. Chronic bilateral right greater than left hand and wrist pain and numbness. 2. DeQuervain's tenosynovitis right arm. 3.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 922, 928
Medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and set forth reasoning, not mere conclusions.
Defendant did not allege Dr. Brose's opinions were based on inadequate facts or speculation and the WCJ found Dr. Brose's opinions to be substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 13Also, a medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 922, 928 [71 Cal Comp Cases 1687].) Defendant does not allege that Dr. Brose' opinions are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. Insofar as defendant claims Dr. Brose failed to set forth the reasoning behind his opinions and that his opinions are not consistent with the AMA
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
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.