What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration denied by WCAB panel after review of WCJ report and opinion
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 WCJ's findings of 78% permanent disability for the specific injury and 26% for the cumulative trauma injury were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. O'Neill and Dr. Schengel, including apportionment of 60% to nonindustrial factors for hypertension.
From the decision · page 4In ADJ10320494, applicant, age 53, while employed as an attorney on September 16, 2015, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the heart, left shoulder, and in the form of deep vein thrombosis.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Edward O'Neill's medical reports and deposition testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the permanent disability ratings and apportionment
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ relied on Dr. O'Neill's detailed and well-reasoned medical opinions to make findings of fact
From the decision · page 8In compliance with section 10682 of the California Code of Regulations, Dr. O'Neill's March 1, 2017 report provides a detailed description of the injury,27 Applicant's the applicant's complaints,28 a listing of 26 pages of records reviewed,29 a summary of the past medical history,30 findings on examination,31 diagnoses,32 duration of temporary disability with a return to work,33 cause of disability,34 treatment indicated,35 opinion that applicant is permanent and stationary and has sustained impairment with a description of the impairment,36 opinions on apportionment,37 reasons for his opinions,38 and a signature.39
Dr. Donald Schengel's expert opinions supported compensable left shoulder injury and grip loss impairment
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ relied on Dr. Schengel's opinions for findings on left shoulder injury and impairment rating
From the decision · page 10Petitioner County of Kern's next argument is that it was error to rate the grip loss.49 The problem with this argument is that the orthopedic QME, Dr. Donald Schengel, opines that using grip strength in this case is justified. Specifically, Dr. Schengel explains as follows:
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.
Provided substantial medical evidence supporting 78% permanent disability for the specific injury and 26% for the cumulative trauma injury, including apportionment of 60% to nonindustrial factors for hypertension.
The WCJ relied on Dr. O'Neill's detailed and well-reasoned medical reports and deposition testimony as substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 1Next, we note that these claims were consolidated on April 10, 2018. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 4/10/18, at p. 2:3-6.) Therefore, documentary evidence received in one case is part of the record in both cases. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396(e).) Moreover, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Edward O'Neill, M.D., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied regarding the specific injury in Case No. ADJ10320494. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [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
Provided expert opinions supporting compensable left shoulder injury and justification for rating grip loss impairment.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Schengel's expert opinions for findings on left shoulder injury and grip loss impairment.
From the decision · page 5The parties obtained two QME's for the heart, one for each injury. One was Dr. Edward O'Neill and the other Dr. Mark Lensky. applicant was also evaluated by an orthopedic QME, Dr. Donald Schengel.
Not relied upon by the WCJ; defendant did not challenge Dr. O'Neill's opinion with specific references to Dr. Lensky's opinion.
The WCJ found Dr. O'Neill's opinion substantial and did not rely on Dr. Lensky's opinion; defendant did not meet burden to show Dr. Lensky's opinion was more substantial.
From the decision · page 1Next, we note that these claims were consolidated on April 10, 2018. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 4/10/18, at p. 2:3-6.) Therefore, documentary evidence received in one case is part of the record in both cases. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396(e).) Moreover, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) Edward O'Neill, M.D., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied regarding the specific injury in Case No. ADJ10320494. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [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
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Place v. WCAB (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372
Substantial medical evidence standard for WCJ findings
WCJ may rely on one physician's well-reasoned opinion even if inconsistent with others
From the decision · page 2conclusions].) Defendant does not challenge the substantiality of Dr. O'Neill's medical opinion or argue that the opinion of PQME Mark Lensky, M.D., is more substantial with any specific references to the record as required by WCAB Rule 10945(b). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b).) We observe, moreover, it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. O'Neill's detailed medical reports and deposition testimony
From the decision · page 8In compliance with section 10682 of the California Code of Regulations, Dr. O'Neill's March 1, 2017 report provides a detailed description of the injury,27 Applicant's the applicant's complaints,28 a listing of 26 pages of records reviewed,29 a summary of the past medical history,30 findings on examination,31 diagnoses,32 duration of temporary disability with a return to work,33 cause of disability,34 treatment indicated,35 opinion that applicant is permanent and stationary and has sustained impairment with a description of the impairment,36 opinions on apportionment,37 reasons for his opinions,38 and a signature.39
Dr. Schengel's expert opinion justifying grip strength rating
From the decision · page 10Petitioner County of Kern's next argument is that it was error to rate the grip loss.49 The problem with this argument is that the orthopedic QME, Dr. Donald Schengel, opines that using grip strength in this case is justified. Specifically, Dr. Schengel explains as follows:
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.