What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied by WCAB panel on February 10, 2023, adopting and incorporating WCJ report.
Petition for Reconsideration filed December 12, 2022, based on Opinion on Decision and Findings of Fact and Order dated November 17, 2022, reviewed by WCJ and WCAB panel.
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 the AME report of Dr. Perelman to be the better reasoned and more persuasive medical evidence, supported by the presence of a certified Farsi interpreter at the examination, despite applicant's contrary testimony.
From the decision · page 10Based upon the medical report(s) of AME report of Ronald Perelman, M.D., dated 8/16/2021, which is the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to her bilateral upper extremities arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period of 12/1/2014 through 1/14/2021, and there was in fact - no continuous trauma injury. The undersigned found the Perelman report to be substantial medical evidence.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Certified Farsi interpreter was present at the AME examination on 8/16/2021, supported by interpreter's declaration and AME's original signed forms.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This evidence rebutted applicant's testimony denying interpreter presence, supporting the reliability and substantiality of the AME report.
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.
Found that applicant did not sustain injury to bilateral upper extremities arising out of and in the course of employment during 12/1/2014 through 1/14/2021; no continuous trauma injury found; report was better reasoned and more persuasive medical evidence.
The WCJ and WCAB relied on Dr. Perelman's report as substantial medical evidence, supported by evidence of interpreter presence and original signed forms.
From the decision · page 10Based upon the medical report(s) of AME report of Ronald Perelman, M.D., dated 8/16/2021, which is the better reasoned and more persuasive, it is found that applicant did not sustain injury to her bilateral upper extremities arising out of and occurring in the course of employment during the period of 12/1/2014 through 1/14/2021, and there was in fact - no continuous trauma injury. The undersigned found the Perelman report to be substantial medical evidence.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782
Substantial medical evidence standard for WCJ findings
WCJ and WCAB applied this standard to evaluate the AME report's persuasiveness and substantiality.
From the decision · page 1The WCJ properly relied upon the opinion of the agreed medical evaluator (AME), who the parties presumably chose because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. The WCJ was presented with no good reason to find the AME's opinion unpersuasive, and we also find none. (See Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony denying presence of Farsi interpreter at AME examination contradicted by certified interpreter's declaration and AME's declaration with original signed forms.
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.