What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied by the WCAB panel.
Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award issued on February 11, 2025, which was denied by the WCAB panel on May 19, 2025.
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 panel found the opinion of Dr. Stoller to be substantial evidence supporting a 28% permanent disability rating with 25% apportionment to non-industrial ligamentous laxity, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the medical evidence and apportionment.
From the decision · page 4By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 3, 2025, defendant seeks reconsideration of my February 11, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed during the cumulative trauma period from June 13, 2012 through July 7, 2022 as a caregiver in California, by Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right wrist and thumb and fingers, and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 28%. In doing so, I relied upon the opinion of the primary treating physician, Dr. Adam Stoller.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Stoller's July 29, 2024 report showed no pain with grip strength and improvement post-surgery, supporting inclusion of grip strength impairment in rating.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the inclusion of grip strength impairment in the permanent disability rating, contrary to Dr. Welborn's earlier opinion excluding it due to pain.
From the decision · page 6in numerous cases, such as Gutierrez v. WCAB (2018) 83 CCC 1578 (writ denied), where in is was determined that a grip loss rating is impermissible under AMA guides when applicant loses range of motion and has documented wrist pain upon grip strength testing. Dr. Welborn last saw the applicant in August 2023, just a few months removed from surgery. At that time, he noted that she had pain with gripping. In Dr. Stoller's report of July 29, 2024, he noted that her pain had decreased, and he no longer assigned a 2% pain add on which he originally included in his November 11, 2023 report. He reported that she had no pain with grip strength at the July, 2024 evaluation. As Dr. Stoller noted on page 7 of his July 2024 report: "Dr. Welborn does not include the grip strength because she has pain with gripping on his exam, but that was some almost 12 months ago." I agree with applicant's assertion that it seems perfectly reasonable that her pain subsided as she recovered from surgery, and that by the time she was rated by Dr. Stoller when he found her MMI, her pain did not limit her ability to apply maximal force in the region being evaluated.
Dr. Welborn's apportionment lacked evidentiary support and did not explain the 'how and why' of each factor, unlike Dr. Stoller's more consistent apportionment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This undermined the defense's challenge to the apportionment and supported the WCJ's acceptance of Dr. Stoller's apportionment.
From the decision · page 6Because there is no pain in grip strength when measured by Dr. Stoller in his final report on July of 2024, there is no prohibition to include the impairment for loss of grip strength. I also find his assessment of 25% apportionment much more consistent and logical than Dr. Welborn's apportionment determination, which gives numerous apportionment percentages which are unclear and lacking evidentiary support. Moreover, Dr. Welborn's apportionment determination also falls short of addressing the "how and why" of each factor he apportioned, as required by Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 611 (en banc).
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 28% permanent disability rating including loss of grip strength impairment, with 25% apportionment to non-industrial ligamentous laxity. Noted improvement in pain and grip strength by July 2024 report.
Opinion was found to be substantial evidence and consistent with the medical facts and AMA Guides, supporting the permanent disability rating and apportionment.
From the decision · page 4By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 3, 2025, defendant seeks reconsideration of my February 11, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed during the cumulative trauma period from June 13, 2012 through July 7, 2022 as a caregiver in California, by Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right wrist and thumb and fingers, and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 28%. In doing so, I relied upon the opinion of the primary treating physician, Dr. Adam Stoller.
Found 8% whole person impairment excluding loss of grip strength due to pain, apportioned impairment to various factors including pre-existing ligamentous laxity and activities at home, but lacked evidentiary support for apportionment details.
Opinion was considered but found less consistent and lacking evidentiary support compared to Dr. Stoller's opinion.
From the decision · page 4In his August 25, 2023 report (Exh. C), Dr. Welborn found that she has reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). He found 8% whole person impairment (WPI) based upon her surgery and thumb impairment, related to her right wrist and thumb injury. He found loss of grip strength, but determined that it is not a ratable impairment because of her pain with gripping. He also
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604 (en banc)
Substantial evidence standard for medical opinions in workers' compensation cases
The opinion of a single physician may constitute substantial evidence unless erroneous or based on speculation; here Dr. Stoller's opinion was found substantial evidence supporting the disability rating.
From the decision · page 7Any decision by the Appeals Board or a WCJ must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 280§ 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 659].) The opinion of a single physician may constitute substantial evidence, unless it is erroneous, beyond the physician's expertise, no longer germane, or based on an inadequate history, surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; see also Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620§ 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, the opinion of Dr. Stoller is not erroneous, as it is based on an adequate history and is not based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. Therefore, because the opinion of Dr. Stoller is substantial evidence, there is no need to further develop the record.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Stoller's July 29, 2024 report noting no pain with grip strength and improved condition post-surgery
From the decision · page 6in numerous cases, such as Gutierrez v. WCAB (2018) 83 CCC 1578 (writ denied), where in is was determined that a grip loss rating is impermissible under AMA guides when applicant loses range of motion and has documented wrist pain upon grip strength testing. Dr. Welborn last saw the applicant in August 2023, just a few months removed from surgery. At that time, he noted that she had pain with gripping. In Dr. Stoller's report of July 29, 2024, he noted that her pain had decreased, and he no longer assigned a 2% pain add on which he originally included in his November 11, 2023 report. He reported that she had no pain with grip strength at the July, 2024 evaluation. As Dr. Stoller noted on page 7 of his July 2024 report: "Dr. Welborn does not include the grip strength because she has pain with gripping on his exam, but that was some almost 12 months ago." I agree with applicant's assertion that it seems perfectly reasonable that her pain subsided as she recovered from surgery, and that by the time she was rated by Dr. Stoller when he found her MMI, her pain did not limit her ability to apply maximal force in the region being evaluated.
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.