What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was exposed to carbon dioxide for 22-27 minutes in the workplace, which was a reasonably probable contributory cause of his pontine hemorrhage.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This exposure was found by the Appeals Board to be a substantial medical cause of injury AOE/COE, supported by credible testimony and expert opinion.
From the decision · page 3Moreover, the applicant credibly testified that while cleaning an IQF machine, he started
to feel dizzy, he felt tightness in his upper body, and his joints were stiff like muscle cramps
(Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 6/18/24, at p.4:22-25, 32-33); he
heard a hissing noise (MOH/SOE at p. 6:22-24); and he realized that a CO2 valve on the IQF
machine was open. (MOH/SOE at p. 4:13-14, 16-17, 27-28, 32-33). Applicant's credible
testimony was uncontroverted. We have given 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, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant
rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
Applicant's credible testimony about hearing a hissing sound and valve being open was unrebutted and given great weight by the WCJ and Appeals Board.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility of applicant's testimony supported the finding of injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 3Moreover, the applicant credibly testified that while cleaning an IQF machine, he started
to feel dizzy, he felt tightness in his upper body, and his joints were stiff like muscle cramps
(Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 6/18/24, at p.4:22-25, 32-33); he
heard a hissing noise (MOH/SOE at p. 6:22-24); and he realized that a CO2 valve on the IQF
machine was open. (MOH/SOE at p. 4:13-14, 16-17, 27-28, 32-33). Applicant's credible
testimony was uncontroverted. We have given 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, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant
rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
Dr. Bronshvag's medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting injury causation, outweighing contrary opinions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Appeals Board relied on Dr. Bronshvag's opinion to find injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence.
From the decision · page 3Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416§ 17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A
physician's report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be
speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it
must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v.
Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases
1506 (writ den.).) For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, we find that opinion of panel
qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Michael Bronshvag, M.D., to be substantial medical evidence
which supports the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment
(AOE/COE).