What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision was filed and denied by the WCAB panel, adopting the WCJ's report and credibility determinations.
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 WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them, thus denying the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report 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, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and made credibility determinations.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them, leading to denial of reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
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.
Dr. Fisher opined that the applicant has bilateral complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) of the upper extremities due to carpal tunnel surgery related to cumulative trauma at work, with no apportionment to nonindustrial factors, and that the applicant reached maximum medical improvement and is permanent and stationary for rating purposes.
Dr. Fisher's opinion on diagnosis and causation of CRPS was discussed and weighed in the decision.
From the decision · page 3III. FACTS The question of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in this case dates back to the 01/24/2014 report of Andre Ishak, M.D. (Applicant's Exhibit 19). The diagnosis was first made by Kaymar Assil, M.D. on 03/2014 (Applicant's Exhibit 6). The diagnosis was also made by Joshua Prager, M.D. (Applicant's Exhibit 18, report of 07/15/2015) though causation was not discussed. The panel qualified medical examiner Robert Fisher, M.D. had evaluated applicant with respect to the diagnosis and causation of CRPS. Prior to that time Dr. Fisher had reported and testified, including the 06/05/2018 testimony (Defendant's Exhibit N) where Dr. Fisher acknowledged that he lacked specific training in CRPS, that he did not use the International Association for the Study of Pain ("The Association I don't know. I use the one in the Guide.") and that if he had a patient with CRPS he would refer them to a neurologist. (pages 10 § 13). On 04/02/2019 the undersigned ordered development of the medical evidentiary record. In the Opinion on Decision it was noted that Dr. Fisher referred to the AMA Guides with respect to the diagnosis. The Guides are utilized in California workers' compensation cases for the purpose of rating permanent disabilities. However, for diagnostic purposes, the Guides are not binding.
The rules the panel named
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 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]
Credibility determinations by the WCJ are given great weight because the WCJ observes witness demeanor directly.
The WCAB adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to reject them in denying reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determination
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determination 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.)
Surveillance videos showing applicant's unusual use of upper extremities consistent with CRPS symptoms
From the decision · page 5``Consideration is given Defendant's Exhibit Z hereby ordered admitted in evidence. The videos of applicant's activity do not demonstrate that she does not suffer from CRPS. She does engage in some physical activity, as noted in the Summary of Evidence. However the films also show her holding things in an unusual way, using her wrists against her upper body rather than grasping. On balance the surveillance evidence is not inconsistent with the medical histories or applicant's testimony.'
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.