What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award & Orders of February 15, 2024, which found industrial injury to applicant's abdomen hernia during employment.
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 industrial injury was supported by credible expert medical evidence from Dr. Klein that applicant's work duties contributed to the hernia aggravation, despite the absence of contemporaneous medical records documenting the hernia during employment.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact, Award & Orders of February 15, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending July 16, 2021 as a food worker, applicant sustained industrial injury to his abdomen in the form of a hernia.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's work duties involved frequent heavy lifting and laborious effort as a baker's helper during the cumulative trauma period ending July 16, 2021.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credible history supported the medical opinion that the work contributed to the hernia aggravation.
From the decision · page 1As explained below, we will deny the defendant's Petition. Applicant had a hernia condition prior to the employment at issue, having undergone surgery to repair an umbilical hernia on July 8, 2019. (May 16, 2023 report of Dr. Klein at p. 6; Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of July 18, 2024 trail at p. 6.) While incarcerated, applicant commenced the employment at issue at the bakery, beginning on April 1, 2021 and ending on July 16, 2021. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of January 18, 2024 trial at p. 6.) Applicant told Dr. Klein that his duties included "Hauling sacs of sugar, oats, and flour weighing 50 pounds, proportioning 55-gallon mixes involv[ing] frequent lifting and emptying, recurrent heavy lifting 25-30x/day with trips from storage rooms to individual machines. There was some assistance with dollies, but frequent handling and laborious effort required at end use." (May 16, 2023 report at p. 3.)
Dr. Klein opined it was medically reasonable and probable that the recurrent umbilical hernia aggravation resulted from the cumulative trauma industrial injury while performing usual work duties.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This expert opinion was relied upon as substantial evidence to establish industrial injury causation.
From the decision · page 2Dr. Klein opined in his initial report that it was "medically reasonable and probable that the recurrent umbilical hernia aggravation resulted from the cumulative trauma industrial injury while performing the usual and customary duties as a baker's helper." (May 13, 2023 report at p. 6.)
The WCJ found the history given to Dr. Klein regarding work duties credible, which is entitled to great weight in workers' compensation proceedings.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility determinations supported acceptance of the medical opinion and finding of industrial injury.
From the decision · page 3We note that the WCJ stated in his Opinion on Decision that the history given to Dr. Klein regarding the work duties was credible. As the Court of Appeal has held:
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.
It was medically reasonable and probable that the recurrent umbilical hernia aggravation resulted from the cumulative trauma industrial injury while performing usual duties as a baker's helper.
Dr. Klein's opinion was relied upon as substantial medical evidence supporting industrial injury causation.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding industrial injury, arguing that the opinions of panel qualified medical evaluator Michael S. Klein did not constitute substantial medical evidence. We have received an Answer and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299
Work need only be a contributing cause of a physical injury to be considered industrial.
Applied to find that applicant's work duties contributed to the hernia injury.
From the decision · page 2"Expert testimony is necessary `where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences.' [Citation.]" (Peter Kiewit Sons v. Ind. Acc. Com. (McLaughlin) (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].) In order to be considered industrial, work need only be a contributing cause of a physical injury. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal. Comp. Cases 489].) "Further, `the
Peter Kiewit Sons v. Ind. Acc. Com. (McLaughlin) (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838
Expert testimony is necessary where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences.
Applied to support reliance on Dr. Klein's expert medical opinion.
From the decision · page 2"Expert testimony is necessary `where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences.' [Citation.]" (Peter Kiewit Sons v. Ind. Acc. Com. (McLaughlin) (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].) In order to be considered industrial, work need only be a contributing cause of a physical injury. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 299 [80 Cal. Comp. Cases 489].) "Further, `the
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credible history given to Dr. Klein regarding work duties involving frequent heavy lifting and laborious effort was accepted by the WCJ.
From the decision · page 1As explained below, we will deny the defendant's Petition. Applicant had a hernia condition prior to the employment at issue, having undergone surgery to repair an umbilical hernia on July 8, 2019. (May 16, 2023 report of Dr. Klein at p. 6; Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of July 18, 2024 trail at p. 6.) While incarcerated, applicant commenced the employment at issue at the bakery, beginning on April 1, 2021 and ending on July 16, 2021. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of January 18, 2024 trial at p. 6.) Applicant told Dr. Klein that his duties included "Hauling sacs of sugar, oats, and flour weighing 50 pounds, proportioning 55-gallon mixes involv[ing] frequent lifting and emptying, recurrent heavy lifting 25-30x/day with trips from storage rooms to individual machines. There was some assistance with dollies, but frequent handling and laborious effort required at end use." (May 16, 2023 report at p. 3.)
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.