What the panel ordered
The WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration and upheld the Findings and Award issued on March 7, 2025.
Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on March 7, 2025, which was denied by the WCAB panel decision on June 9, 2025.
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 record failed to disclose grounds for misconduct by defendant's attorney; no merit found in the claim that the F&A resulted from misconduct.
From the decision · page 7Lastly, we address applicant's contention that defendant's attorney engaged in misconduct. Here, as stated in the Report, the record fails to disclose grounds to conclude that defendant's attorney engaged in any misconduct. Accordingly, we are unable to discern merit to the argument that the F&A resulted from defendant's attorney's misconduct. Accordingly, we will deny the Petition for Reconsideration.
Dr. Holmes's reports were found to be based on pertinent facts, adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning in support of conclusions, constituting substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 6Here, as stated in the Report, Dr. Homes's reporting of October 14, 2023 indicated that applicant had yet to reach maximal improvement and his subsequent reporting adequately explained his assessment of WPI at 11% in light of applicant having reached maximal medical improvement.
The record showed no denial of notice or opportunity to be heard; the WCJ considered one trial brief for each party and allowed defendant's brief after trial due to service issues; thus no error in failing to consider applicant's post-trial briefs.
From the decision · page 7Here, the record does not show that applicant was not denied notice and an opportunity to be heard with regard to the evidence defendant presented at trial or denied an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. In particular, as stated in the Report, the WCJ considered one trial brief for each party and only permitted defendant to submit its brief after trial because it had not been served with applicant's brief. Accordingly, we are unable to discern error in the WCJ's failure to consider applicant's post-trial briefs.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Holmes provided a credible rationale for reducing WPI from 13% to 11% based on examination at MMI.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the WCJ's finding that Dr. Holmes's report constituted substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 2I relied on the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Holmes, who reduced his assessment of Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 13% in a pre-Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) report down to 11% when applicant was ultimately declared at MMI.
Applicant failed to cross-examine Dr. Holmes on range of motion testing at deposition.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This undermined applicant's argument about inadequate evaluation and supported the credibility of Dr. Holmes's report.
From the decision · page 3On re-direct examination, applicant testified that he had an epidural spinal injection in 2019. He was asked to do bending by Dr. Holmes, but not in May of 2024. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), January 9, 2025 at pp. 5-7.)... With respect to the allegation that Dr. Holmes arbitrarily reduced the level of permanent impairment from 13% WPI (report of July 3, 2023) to 11%WPI (report of June 2, 2024), applicant leaves a crucial fact out of his Petition, which is that Dr. Holmes stated in his intervening report of October 14, 2023 that applicant had not yet reached MMI status. At p. 5 of my Opinion, I noted that Dr. Holmes provided a credible rationale for his reduction of the WPI by 2%, based upon his examination of applicant at the time of his last report.... Regarding the argument over the range of motion measurements, applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Holmes at his deposition on August 20, 2024, but curiously chose not to do so, instead asking the doctor only a few general questions about the reduction from 13% WPI to 11% WPI with no mention of range of motion measurements. Moreover, the WPI classification utilized by Dr. Holmes is pursuant to the DRE method of impairment assessment, which is used to be used to measure permanent impairment in the spine in the vast majority of cases. By contrast, the range
The record shows no denial of notice or opportunity to be heard regarding evidence and rebuttal at trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the denial of applicant's claim that post-trial briefs should have been considered.
From the decision · page 7Here, the record does not show that applicant was not denied notice and an opportunity to be heard with regard to the evidence defendant presented at trial or denied an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. In particular, as stated in the Report, the WCJ considered one trial brief for each party and only permitted defendant to submit its brief after trial because it had not been served with applicant's brief. Accordingly, we are unable to discern error in the WCJ's failure to consider applicant's post-trial briefs.
The record fails to disclose grounds for misconduct by defendant's attorney.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the rejection of applicant's claim of attorney misconduct affecting the F&A.
From the decision · page 7Lastly, we address applicant's contention that defendant's attorney engaged in misconduct. Here, as stated in the Report, the record fails to disclose grounds to conclude that defendant's attorney engaged in any misconduct. Accordingly, we are unable to discern merit to the argument that the F&A resulted from defendant's attorney's misconduct. Accordingly, we will deny the Petition for Reconsideration.
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.
Reduced Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 13% pre-MMI to 11% at MMI based on DRE method, with adequate examination and history, and credible rationale for reduction.
The WCJ found Dr. Holmes's opinion credible and well-supported by examination and history, constituting substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 2I relied on the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Holmes, who reduced his assessment of Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 13% in a pre-Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) report down to 11% when applicant was ultimately declared at MMI.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc)
Substantial evidence must be relevant, reasonable, based on adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning in support of conclusions.
The WCJ applied this standard to find Dr. Holmes's report constitutes substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 6We observe that all decisions by a WCJ must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; Bracken v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 246 [54 Cal.Comp.Cases 349].) Substantial evidence has been described as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and must be more than a mere scintilla. (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].) To constitute substantial evidence "... 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." (Escobedo v.
Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 704
Due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard, including ability to present objections and evidence.
The WCJ applied this standard to reject applicant's claim of denial of fair hearing due to post-trial briefs not considered.
From the decision · page 7As the Court of Appeal stated in Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 704 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230]:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Holmes's credible rationale for reducing WPI from 13% to 11% based on examination at MMI
From the decision · page 2I relied on the opinion of the Qualified Medical Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Holmes, who reduced his assessment of Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 13% in a pre-Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) report down to 11% when applicant was ultimately declared at MMI.
Applicant's failure to cross-examine Dr. Holmes on range of motion testing at deposition
From the decision · page 3On re-direct examination, applicant testified that he had an epidural spinal injection in 2019. He was asked to do bending by Dr. Holmes, but not in May of 2024. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), January 9, 2025 at pp. 5-7.)... With respect to the allegation that Dr. Holmes arbitrarily reduced the level of permanent impairment from 13% WPI (report of July 3, 2023) to 11%WPI (report of June 2, 2024), applicant leaves a crucial fact out of his Petition, which is that Dr. Holmes stated in his intervening report of October 14, 2023 that applicant had not yet reached MMI status. At p. 5 of my Opinion, I noted that Dr. Holmes provided a credible rationale for his reduction of the WPI by 2%, based upon his examination of applicant at the time of his last report.... Regarding the argument over the range of motion measurements, applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Holmes at his deposition on August 20, 2024, but curiously chose not to do so, instead asking the doctor only a few general questions about the reduction from 13% WPI to 11% WPI with no mention of range of motion measurements. Moreover, the WPI classification utilized by Dr. Holmes is pursuant to the DRE method of impairment assessment, which is used to be used to measure permanent impairment in the spine in the vast majority of cases. By contrast, the range
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.