What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted, WCJ's decision rescinded, case returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision
Petition for reconsideration granted, WCJ's Findings and Order of August 12, 2024 rescinded, case returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision on industrial causation
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The WCJ's original decision was rescinded because the record was insufficient to establish industrial injury; the case was remanded for further development including additional medical reports addressing causation specifically related to the applicant's diagnosed condition and chemical exposures.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 12, 2024, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the kidney while employed during a cumulative period ending February 28, 2021. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of her workers' compensation claim.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Harrison's report did not specifically address the applicant's diagnosed condition of FSGS and relied on general kidney disease studies
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was a key reason the WCJ found the report insufficient to establish industrial injury, leading to the decision being rescinded for further development.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Harrison's report fails to state within reasonable medical probability based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history that Applicant's injury arose out of employment or occurred during the course of employment. Applicant argues that Dr. Harrison demonstrated knowledge of the issue and correlated his opinion with scientific studies. However, this is merely window dressing as Dr. Harrison failed to take into consideration any of the facts or history beyond his assertion of scientific evidence supporting causation. Dr. Harrison generally refers to her condition as kidney disease when citing alleged scientific studies. This general terminology can result in confusion, as Applicant was not diagnosed with chronic kidney disease but rather FSGS. These two conditions, although causing damage to the kidneys, cannot be identified as one in the same as there are different symptoms, classifications and pathologies. Dr. Harrison's reliance on the general term "chronic kidney disease" is simply because he could not or did not find any studies which discuss FSGS. Dr. Harrison's failure to specifically address FSGS results in a reporting that is incorrect and based on surmise and conjecture.
Dr. Noriega reviewed extensive medical records and was open to reconsidering his opinion if new employment information was presented
Favours Applicant prevailed
This openness justified remanding the case for further development and additional medical reports.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, in this matter, QME Dr. Noriega examined the applicant twice and
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.
Concluded applicant's FSGS was industrial based on medical and scientific literature linking organic solvent exposure to kidney disease, but report was found insufficient as it did not specifically address FSGS or applicant's clinical facts.
Report failed to state within reasonable medical probability that injury arose out of employment; relied on general kidney disease studies not specific to FSGS; did not review treatment records; opinion was considered surmise and conjecture.
From the decision · page 3Harrison. Dr. Harrison apparently examined the applicant twice, on May 2, 2021 and on July 6,
Examined applicant twice, reviewed voluminous medical records, found idiopathic or primary FSGS more probable than industrial causation but remained open to new information that might change opinion.
Could not state industrial contribution was medically probable based on current record; open to reconsideration if new employment information was presented.
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, in this matter, QME Dr. Noriega examined the applicant twice and
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board
The Appeals Board acted on the petition on the 60th day, November 22, 2024, thus timely acting as required.
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253]
Applicant has the burden of establishing reasonable probability of industrial causation
Applicant must establish industrial injury in further proceedings; no opinion expressed on ultimate resolution.
From the decision · page 4establishing the `reasonable probability of industrial causation.'" (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Harrison's report failed to specifically address FSGS and relied on general kidney disease studies, which was considered surmise and conjecture
From the decision · page 3Dr. Harrison's report fails to state within reasonable medical probability based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history that Applicant's injury arose out of employment or occurred during the course of employment. Applicant argues that Dr. Harrison demonstrated knowledge of the issue and correlated his opinion with scientific studies. However, this is merely window dressing as Dr. Harrison failed to take into consideration any of the facts or history beyond his assertion of scientific evidence supporting causation. Dr. Harrison generally refers to her condition as kidney disease when citing alleged scientific studies. This general terminology can result in confusion, as Applicant was not diagnosed with chronic kidney disease but rather FSGS. These two conditions, although causing damage to the kidneys, cannot be identified as one in the same as there are different symptoms, classifications and pathologies. Dr. Harrison's reliance on the general term "chronic kidney disease" is simply because he could not or did not find any studies which discuss FSGS. Dr. Harrison's failure to specifically address FSGS results in a reporting that is incorrect and based on surmise and conjecture.
Dr. Noriega reviewed voluminous medical records and was open to reconsidering his opinion if new information was presented
From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, in this matter, QME Dr. Noriega examined the applicant twice and
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.