What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Orders issued July 2, 2025, which the WCJ recommended be denied.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 26, 2024.
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 finding of a closed period of temporary disability is supported by substantial evidence from PQME chiropractor Michaels' medical reports and the applicant's credible testimony, despite defendant's argument about lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.
From the decision · page 4In the present case there is a closed period of retroactive temporary disability occurring before the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME), chiropractor Michaels, evaluated the applicant on August 1, 2024. (Joint Exhibit 6.) The PQME then subsequently provided a February 1, 2025, supplemental report. (Joint Exhibit 7.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME chiropractor Michaels provided a reasoned medical opinion supported by medical and testimonial evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the temporary disability period.
From the decision · page 5Here we agree PQME chiropractor Michaels provided a medical opinion which is reasoned and supported by the medical and testimonial evidence of record, and as such is substantial evidence to support the temporary disability period. In addition, we give the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
Applicant's credible testimony corroborated the medical evidence regarding temporary disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ gave great weight to the applicant's testimony as it supported the medical opinion.
From the decision · page 4(Report, July 29, 2025, PDF page 4.) The WCJ concluded that "applicant's testimony also corroborates the medical evidence regarding temporary disability." (Report, July 29, 2025, PDF page 5.)
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.
Provided reasoned medical opinion supporting temporary disability period and permanent and stationary dates for bilateral knees, including deterioration and additional impairment.
The WCJ gave great weight to Dr. Michael's credibility and medical opinion as substantial evidence supporting the temporary disability period.
From the decision · page 4As stated by the WCJ in the Report: In this case, Dr. Michael provided an initial permanent and stationary date for the right knee on August 3, 2023. (Joint Exh. 5.) However, a rating discussion for the left knee was not provided in that report. Thereafter, in Dr. Michael's report dated August 30, 2024, both knees were found permanent and stationary as of the evaluation date, August 1, 2024. (Joint Exh. 6.) Moreover, additional disability was found for the right knee at that time, along with a new rating for the left knee. Dr. Michael reported, "The patient reports his condition deteriorating with altered gait patterns. It is with reasonable probability that the patient's condition had deteriorated as outlined above." (Id. p. 8, emphasis added.) Due to the deterioration of applicant's condition between reporting, the additional impairment assigned, and both knees now being discussed by Dr. Michael, the applicant was most reasonably permanent and stationary on August 1, 2024, not August 3, 2023.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 9785(f)(8)
A progress report shall be made no less than forty-five days from the last report when continuing medical treatment is provided by a primary treating physician.
Defendant's argument about lack of contemporaneous medical evidence was distinguished by the presence of substantial medical opinion evidence from the PQME.
Lab. Code 4062.3(k) and 4060 to 4062.2
The parties shall utilize the same medical evaluator who prepared the previous evaluation to resolve the medical dispute regarding temporary disability.
PQME chiropractor Michaels was the proper evaluator to resolve the parties' medical dispute regarding temporary disability.
From the decision · page 4If the parties have a medical issue such as temporary disability, "the parties, to the extent possible, shall utilize the same medical evaluator who prepared the previous evaluation to resolve the medical dispute." (See Lab. Code § 4062.3(k) and § 4060 to 4062.2.) Here PQME chiropractor Michaels has previously issued reporting dated November 11, 2022, (Joint Exhibits 2 and 4 [duplicates]), and August 31, 2023, (Joint Exhibits 1 and 5 [duplicates]). Further, PQME chiropractor Michael was deposed on July 13, 2023. (Joint Exhibit 3.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony corroborated the medical evidence regarding temporary disability.
From the decision · page 4(Report, July 29, 2025, PDF page 4.) The WCJ concluded that "applicant's testimony also corroborates the medical evidence regarding temporary disability." (Report, July 29, 2025, PDF page 5.)
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.