ADJ7085341 · December 4, 2023

The WCAB found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his bilateral hips, relying heavily on the AME Dr. Renbaum's opinions and deposition testimony, which were found reasonable and persuasive.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact, Award and Orders of September 14, 2023, wherein, as relevant to the instant Petition, it was found in case ADJ70853411 that "The applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his bilateral hips, circulatory/heart/high blood pressure" and "Applicant sustained no new and further disability against the [sic] City of Stockton." In case ADJ7699285, it was found that "Applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his left hip."2 In these matters, in a Stipulated Award of November 1, 2011, it was found that during a cumulative period ending July 31, 2006 in case ADJ7085341, while employed as a code enforcement officer, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, causing permanent disability of 8%. In a concurrently issued Stipulated Award in case ADJ7699285, it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending September 14, 2009, applicant sustained industrial injury to his back, causing permanent disability of 6%.3 On January 15, 2014, applicant filed a Petition to Reopen.4

Dr. Renbaum's opinions and deposition testimony concluded no industrial causation for the bilateral hips injury based on timing and symptom onset.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCAB found these opinions reasonable and persuasive, forming substantial evidence to deny the claim for industrial injury to the hips.

From the decision · page 7As to the AME's depositions it is the 6/2/22 deposition and the questions regarding Applicant's left hip are pressed. Joint 108 pages 4-17. All the information cited in Applicant's reconsideration petition was at hand at this deposition and pressed to the AME. The problem here is that the answers given by the AME, Dr. Renbaum, were reasonable and persuasive in my opinion. However, the Applicant's Attorney's opinion is the opposite, the AME's answers were not reasonable or sufficient to support substantial evidence on the left hip causation question. Dr. Renbaum reviewed Dr. Barzaga's report of7/21/16 which discusses the 7/7/10 report, page 3, paragraph 1. Joint 105. Other than the substantial evidence supporting the decision there are other issues. The records discussed by Applicant's Attorney were in existence for over a year before this case Stipulated. No explanation is given. In addition, Applicant's Attorney does not explain why it took until 8-29-17 to amend in the left hip when the very records put forward by Applicant's Attorney existed in July 2010. Someone had notice of the potential left hip injury in July of2010 and needed to file a claim LC5400. Be that as it may, there was substantial evidence supporting the finding there was no industrial injury to Applicant's left hip. RECOMMENDATIONS Applicant's petition for reconsideration should be denied.

Dr. Renbaum, the AME, evaluated the applicant multiple times and issued several reports and depositions concluding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his bilateral hips. He initially assigned some impairment but later changed his opinion to non-industrial causation for the left hip based on timing and symptom onset.

The WCAB relied on Dr. Renbaum's thorough evaluations, multiple reports, and deposition testimony as substantial evidence supporting no industrial causation for the bilateral hips injury.

From the decision · page 6Dr. Renbaum's opinions meet all factors. He is the AME both at the time of the previous stipulations with request for award but also currently. He evaluated Applicant multiple times and had his deposition taken twice. The AME reviewed Applicant's two depositions, Joint 101 pages 6-10.

LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 644, 650

The applicant has the burden of establishing the reasonable probability of industrial causation for workers' compensation benefits.

Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for industrial causation of bilateral hips injury.

From the decision · page 2Although applicant argues that agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Joel W. Renbaum, M.D.'s opinions did not constitute substantial medical evidence, as the party with the burden of proof, it was applicant's burden to procure substantial medical evidence standing for the proposition that applicant sustained industrial hip injury. "The applicant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of establishing the `reasonable probability of industrial causation'" (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253] citing McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705.) Thus, especially given the time applicant has been afforded to develop the record, and the multiple reports and deposition sessions from the AME, even if Dr. Renbaum's opinions were not substantial, applicant's Petition would still be unavailing. The applicant had multiple opportunities which he availed himself of to question Dr. Renbaum regarding his opinions. Ultimately after 15 pages of deposition transcripts questioning Dr. Renbaum about causation of the hip injury, applicant's counsel admitted, "I guess

The AME Dr. Renbaum's opinions and deposition testimony were found reasonable and persuasive, supporting no industrial causation for the bilateral hips injury.

From the decision · page 7As to the AME's depositions it is the 6/2/22 deposition and the questions regarding Applicant's left hip are pressed. Joint 108 pages 4-17. All the information cited in Applicant's reconsideration petition was at hand at this deposition and pressed to the AME. The problem here is that the answers given by the AME, Dr. Renbaum, were reasonable and persuasive in my opinion. However, the Applicant's Attorney's opinion is the opposite, the AME's answers were not reasonable or sufficient to support substantial evidence on the left hip causation question. Dr. Renbaum reviewed Dr. Barzaga's report of7/21/16 which discusses the 7/7/10 report, page 3, paragraph 1. Joint 105. Other than the substantial evidence supporting the decision there are other issues. The records discussed by Applicant's Attorney were in existence for over a year before this case Stipulated. No explanation is given. In addition, Applicant's Attorney does not explain why it took until 8-29-17 to amend in the left hip when the very records put forward by Applicant's Attorney existed in July 2010. Someone had notice of the potential left hip injury in July of2010 and needed to file a claim LC5400. Be that as it may, there was substantial evidence supporting the finding there was no industrial injury to Applicant's left hip. RECOMMENDATIONS Applicant's petition for reconsideration should be denied.