What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied, Findings of Fact upheld.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Supplemental Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on May 5, 2022, which found injury arising out of and in the course of employment to lumbar spine, right knee, and left shoulder.
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 preponderance of evidence from Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar supports injury to the left shoulder and right knee, despite defendant's arguments about prior injury and inconsistent testimony.
From the decision · page 3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Reports from Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar agreed on cumulative trauma to left shoulder and right knee.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Their consistent findings constituted substantial evidence supporting injury.
From the decision · page 3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)
Physicians received accurate histories including prior right knee surgery.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the credibility and causation opinions despite defendant's argument about prior injury.
From the decision · page 7All physicians were told about the prior right knee surgery many years earlier. So the histories received by the physicians herein were correct. What may likely
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.
Concluded applicant sustained cumulative injury to left shoulder and right knee; found impingement of left shoulder and right knee exam consistent with injury.
Reports constitute substantial evidence supporting injury to left shoulder and right knee.
From the decision · page 3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)
Found cumulative injury to left shoulder, lumbar spine, and right knee; noted range of motion abnormalities and pain in left shoulder and right knee.
Reports constitute substantial evidence supporting injury to left shoulder and right knee.
From the decision · page 3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)
Agreed with other physicians that applicant sustained cumulative trauma to left shoulder and right knee.
Reports constitute substantial evidence supporting injury to left shoulder and right knee.
From the decision · page 3Drs. Haronian, Drakshani, and Farsar all agreed that the employee has sustained cumulative trauma to the left shoulder and right knee as well as the low back. (Report, p. 2.) The physicians received accurate histories and made identical findings of injury, need for care and disabilities. Hence the preponderance of evidence supports the finding of injury to the left shoulder and right knee. (Report, p. 3.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (Bolton) (1983) 48 CCC 566
A finding of injury must be based upon substantial medical evidence sufficient to support a medical conclusion.
The preponderance of medical evidence from multiple physicians was found credible and sufficient to support injury findings.
From the decision · page 7A finding of injury must be based upon substantial medical evidence. The evidence must be sufficient so that a reasonable mind might find the evidence to be adequate to support a medical conclusion. Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (Bolton) (1983) 48 CCC 566. Such opinions must be credible and not based on inadequate medical histories, surmise, conjecture or guess. Place v. WCAB (1970) 35 CCC 575.
Place v. WCAB (1970) 35 CCC 575
Medical opinions must be credible and not based on inadequate histories, surmise, conjecture or guess.
The physicians received accurate histories including prior surgeries, supporting credible causation opinions.
From the decision · page 7A finding of injury must be based upon substantial medical evidence. The evidence must be sufficient so that a reasonable mind might find the evidence to be adequate to support a medical conclusion. Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (Bolton) (1983) 48 CCC 566. Such opinions must be credible and not based on inadequate medical histories, surmise, conjecture or guess. Place v. WCAB (1970) 35 CCC 575.
Bracken v. WCAB (1989) 54 CCC 349
A finding of fact must be based on a review of all evidence, not isolated facts.
The WCJ reviewed the entire record and found the medical opinions supported injury to left shoulder and right knee.
From the decision · page 7A finding of fact must also be based on a review of all the evidence and not simply upon an isolated fact that disregards the entire record. Bracken v. WCAB (1989) 54 CCC 349.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Inconsistent testimony on left shoulder claim in deposition, but medical reports favored left shoulder injury
From the decision · page 7There was inconsistent testimony on the shoulder claim in the deposition. However the undersigned took note of Dr. Farsar's report (Ex. X-1) which noted that this unsophisticated claimant told him that he had right shoulder complaints but pointed to his left shoulder (Ex. X-1, p.4).
Accurate medical histories including prior right knee surgery, supporting causation opinions
From the decision · page 7All physicians were told about the prior right knee surgery many years earlier. So the histories received by the physicians herein were correct. What may likely
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.