What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Order of February 10, 2026, rescinded; new Findings substituted finding injury AOE/COE; all other issues deferred.
Lien claimant Medland Medical Tustin sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on February 10, 2026, by the WCJ, which denied injury AOE/COE. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and substituted a new Findings of Fact finding injury AOE/COE and deferring all other issues.
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 Appeals Board found that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE based on applicant's credible account, Dr. Haghighinia's medical opinion linking the injury to work, and the lack of contradictory evidence from defendant's witness who was not present at the injury.
From the decision · page 8We now turn to the issue of whether lien claimant met the burden to show injuryn AOE/COE.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible account to Dr. Haghighinia of lifting a heavy metal table on September 27, 2024, causing sudden lower back pain.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports finding injury AOE/COE as the injury occurred by reason of employment conditions.
From the decision · page 8Applicant reported to Dr. Haghighina that: She and five other employees were instructed to move a heavy metal table to a different location. She was positioned with two coworkers on one side, while three others held the opposite side. As she exerted force to lift the table, she experienced sudden pain and discomfort in her lower back, which she attributed to excessive strain.
Dr. Haghighinia's medical opinion that the patient's lumbar spine pain is directly related to the industrial injury of 09/27/2024.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provides medical causation linking injury to employment.
From the decision · page 8Given the patient's current symptoms, physical findings and the nature of her injury, I believe that this patient's current condition and complaints are the direct result of her industrial injury of 09/27/2024.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Weakens defendant's denial and supports applicant's injury claim.
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.
The patient's lumbar spine pain and discomfort are most likely related to the injury sustained on 09/27/2024. The patient reported lifting a heavy table at the time of the injury, which led to pain and discomfort in the lumbar region.
Based on physical examination, patient history, and injury mechanism, the condition is directly related to the industrial injury of 09/27/2024.
From the decision · page 5Based on the physical examination performed today, review of the patient's history, and the mechanism of injury, it is my professional opinion that the patient's lumbar spine pain and discomfort are most likely related to the injury sustained on 09/27/2024. The patient reported lifting a heavy table at the time of the injury, which led to pain and discomfort in the lumbar region.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
Applicant has the initial burden of proving industrial causation by showing the employment was a contributing cause.
Applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury occurred AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 8When an applicant claims a physical injury, applicant has the initial burden of proving industrial causation by showing the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, § 5705.) Applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an injury occurred AOE/COE. (Lab. Code, § 3202.5; 3600(a).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
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.