ADJ17888964 · December 15, 2025

The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion was supported by substantial evidence, including adequate examination, history, and reasoning, and was not speculative or erroneous, so the medical evidence was upheld.

From the decision · page 2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must 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].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial

The Applicant was awarded a 46% permanent disability rating based on Dr. Ahmed's report, with no apportionment to pre-existing conditions, and entitlement to further medical treatment was established.

From the decision · page 8The factors of permanent disability that were set forth in the rating instructions dated September 2, 2025, was based on the permanent and stationary report of Khalid B. Ahmed, M.D., dated January 15, 2025, (Applicant's Exhibit "2").

The petition was timely filed and acted upon within the 60-day statutory period, and the WCJ's findings were supported by substantial medical evidence, so the petition was denied.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and Opinion on Decision of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, both of which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration.

Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion was based on adequate history, examination, and reasonable medical probability, and was found substantial medical evidence by the WCJ.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the permanent disability award and denial of Defendant's petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must 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].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial

Defendant's medical-legal conclusions were based on a false history and contradicted by credible testimony of Applicant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This undermined Defendant's challenge to the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Ahmed's opinion.

The petition for reconsideration was timely filed and acted upon within the 60-day statutory period.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the procedural validity of the WCAB's denial of the petition.

From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on October 16, 2025 and 60 days from the date of transmission is December 15, 2025. This decision is issued by or on December 15, 2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).

Found industrial injury to lumbar spine, both knees and left ankle resulting in 46% permanent disability with need for further medical treatment; opinion was based on adequate history, examination, and reasonable medical probability; opinion was substantial medical evidence.

WCJ found Dr. Ahmed's opinion better reasoned and more persuasive than Dr. Ghaziaskar's, and relied on it for causation and disability rating.

From the decision · page 2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must 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].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial

Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604

Medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on pertinent facts, adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning in support of conclusions.

Applied to evaluate Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion as substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must 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].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial

Labor Code section 5909

A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Applied to determine timeliness of petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 93

For an expert's medical opinion to be substantial evidence it must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability that is based on pertinent facts, an adequate examination, an accurate history and set forth proper reasoning in support of its conclusions.

Applied to uphold Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion as substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 6For an expert's medical opinion to be substantial evidence it must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability that is based on pertinent facts, an adequate examination, an accurate history and set forth proper reasoning in support of its conclusions. [Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).] Reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, based on facts no longer germane, contain inadequate medical histories and examinations, or are based on incorrect legal theories, surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. [Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 93, 97.]

Labor Code section 4061(i) does not require all evaluations to find injured worker permanent and stationary before trial; a declaration of readiness to proceed is the first step to trial.

Applied to address Defendant's claim regarding permanent and stationary status under Labor Code section 4061(i).

WCJ's credibility determinations given great weight due to opportunity to observe witness demeanor; no evidence to reject credibility

From the decision · page 3Finally, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations 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.)

Defendant's medical-legal conclusions based on false history; Applicant's credible testimony favored