What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred
Petition for Reconsideration granted for further study; final decision deferred
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 court found injury AOE/COE based on the credible testimony and the controlling report of Dr. Kinchsular, despite defendant's objections to the QME report's timeliness.
From the decision · page 1Applicant herein claims injury to her left foot as a result of long hours of standing/walking on a hard marble floor. She reported this problem to her supervisor who confirmed the reporting. She was allowed to wear tennis shoes instead of dress shoes to attempt to alleviate the problem.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant credibly testified regarding onset of left foot pain and reporting to supervisor who allowed wearing tennis shoes
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding of injury AOE/COE
From the decision · page 1At the trial, applicant credibly testified regarding the onset of left foot pain, and reporting of such to her supervisor, who acknowledged the reporting and allowed her to wear more comfortable shoes. There was some dispute regarding how long she would have to stand. She was assigned to the Hall of Records of
The court found the Kinchsular report controls as the objection to the report was not properly perfected before issuance
Favours Applicant prevailed
Led to acceptance of cumulative injury basis and rejection of defendant's objection
From the decision · page 2The Court found the applicant's condition industrial on a cumulative basis as the Court believes that the Kinchsular report controls, as a proper objection was not set forth prior to the issuance of the report in question.
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 the applicant's condition industrial on a cumulative basis, which the court found controlling.
The court found the Kinchsular report controls as the objection to the report was not properly perfected before issuance.
From the decision · page 1Two QMEs participated in this case, both of whom found injury AOE/COE, albeit through different mechanisms of injury. There are no medical reports negating injury.
Found the applicant's condition industrial on a specific basis, but his opinion was deemed unnecessary.
The court found Dr. Kinchsular's cumulative basis opinion controls, making Dr. Van Dyne's opinion unnecessary.
From the decision · page 2The parties proceeded with the second panel and Dr. Timothy Van Dyne was selected as the new QME. Dr. Kinchsular had found the applicant's condition industrial on a cumulative basis. Dr. Van Dyne found [] the applicant's condition industrial on a specific basis. Exh I.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 5701
No need to appoint a regular doctor under LC Sec. 5701 as injury AOE/COE was found
From the decision · page 3Having considered the testimony at the time of trial and the reporting of Dr. Kinchsular, a finding of injury AOE/COE is appropriate. There is no need to appoint a regular doctor under LC Sec. 5701.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credible testimony of applicant regarding onset of left foot pain and reporting to supervisor
From the decision · page 1At the trial, applicant credibly testified regarding the onset of left foot pain, and reporting of such to her supervisor, who acknowledged the reporting and allowed her to wear more comfortable shoes. There was some dispute regarding how long she would have to stand. She was assigned to the Hall of Records of
No medical reports negating injury
From the decision · page 1Two QMEs participated in this case, both of whom found injury AOE/COE, albeit through different mechanisms of injury. There are no medical reports negating injury.
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.