Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319
Credibility determinations of WCJ entitled to great weight unless contrary evidence of substantiality
WCJ's credibility findings based on witness demeanor are highly respected
From the decision · page 6As the parties are well aware, pursuant to Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970)
3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], credibility determinations of the WCJ, as the
trier of fact, are entitled to great weight based upon the WCJ's opportunity to observe the demeanor
of the witnesses and weigh the witnesses' statements in connection with their manner on the stand.
Credibility determinations are not to be disturbed except where there is contrary evidence of
considerable substantiality. No such evidence was provided here.
Lab. Code, 5705
Burden of proof rests on party holding affirmative; preponderance of evidence standard applies
Applicant must show employment was a contributing cause of injury
From the decision · page 4Turning now to the merits of the Petition, it is well established that the burden of proof
rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) As such, when an
employee claims injury AOE/COE, it is the employee, or the lien claimant who steps in the shoes
of the employee, who carries the burden of proof in establishing industrial causation and they must
show that the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297- 298, 302; § 5705; 3600.) Pursuant to section
3202.5, the evidentiary burden of proof is to be met by a preponderance of the evidence.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164
Substantial medical evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value
Medical evidence must be more than a scintilla and must be credible to support causation
From the decision · page 4Further, substantial medical evidence is used to establish industrial causation. "The term
`substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more
than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value."
(Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159,
164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) Pursuant to E.L. Yeager
E.L. Yeager v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th922, 928
Medical opinion is not substantial evidence if based on inadequate histories or speculation
Medical reports must set forth reasoning and be based on adequate facts to be substantial evidence
From the decision · page 5v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases
1687], "[a] medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane,
on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise,
speculation, conjecture, or guess. (citations.) Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence
unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions.
(citation.)" "A medical report which lacks a relevant factual basis cannot rise to a higher level than
its own inadequate premises. Such reports do not constitute substantial evidence to support a denial
of benefits. (citation.)" (Kyle v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd (City and County of San Francisco)
(1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 614, 621.)