Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hikida v. WCAB (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1249
Compensable consequence of medical treatment
Employee entitled to recover when medical treatment for industrial injury causes new or worsening iatrogenic injury
From the decision · page 8An employee has the right to recover compensation when medical treatment for an industrial injury causes a new or worsening iatrogenic injury, leading to additional medical treatment and increased disability, regardless of whether the employer, the insurance carrier, or the employee chooses the physician. ( Applied Materials v. Workers’ Comp.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
Substantial evidence requirement for medical opinions
Medical opinion must be framed in reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination
From the decision · page 8It is axiomatic that substantial evidence must support the decisions by the Appeals Board. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.
Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389
Duty to develop record when evidence insufficient
WCJ and Appeals Board have duty to further develop record where absence of or insufficient evidence
From the decision · page 11“[I]n order to ensure reliance on substantial evidence, and a complete adjudication of the issues consistent with due process,” the WCJ and the Appeals Board both have a duty to further develop the record where there is an absence of, or insufficient evidence to determine the issues raised for trial. ( Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.