ADJ10821987 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted in part; Findings affirmed except issue of injury AOE/COE deferred; matter remanded to WCJ for further proceedings.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings issued December 12, 2023, which found applicant's stroke injury arose out of and in the course of employment; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded the issue of injury AOE/COE for further proceedings.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COERemandedbrain · nervous system

The issue of whether the stroke injury was industrial was deferred because the medical opinions from QMEs Mahmoudi and Rutchik were not substantial evidence as they deferred causation to a cardiologist, and the record lacked substantial evidence on this threshold issue.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 12, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant's injury to his brain and nervous system, in the form of a stroke, arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment with defendant.

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.

QMERejected · internal medicine

Believed applicant's cardiac, brain, and GI conditions were industrial; deferred causation of stroke to a neurologist; stated no cardiac source of emboli found; testified that if neurological causes ruled out, cardiovascular system would be the remaining plausible cause.

The opinion was ultimately not considered substantial evidence because the doctor deferred causation to a neurologist and did not provide a definitive causation opinion on the stroke.

From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND Applicant claimed injury to his heart/cardiovascular system, to his gastrointestinal system, and to his brain/nervous system in the form of a stroke, while employed by defendant as a correctional officer during the period from October 20, 2015, through October 20, 2016. The following is a brief summary of the numerous reports from Dr. Mahmoudi and Dr. Rutchik, and their deposition testimony, relevant to the issues addressed herein: Internal medicine QME Dr. Mahmoudi evaluated applicant on November 29, 2017. Dr. Mahmoudi examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record he was provided. The diagnoses included cerebrovascular accident, hypertension, and ventricular hypertrophy. (Joint Exh. AA, Massoud Mahmoudi D.O., December 18, 2017, p. 19.) The doctor stated, "I believe, within reasonable medical probability that the claimant's cardiac, brain, and the GI condition are industrial" and he requested that he be provided Veteran's Administration (VA) and "pre-injury" medical records. (Joint Exh. AA, p.

QMERejected · neurology

Diagnosed stroke due to embolism related to vertebral artery; opined cardiac issues (ventricular hypertrophy, atrial flutter, hypertension) were significant contributors; deferred cardiovascular causation to specialists; testimony showed deference to cardiology for final causation determination.

The opinion was ultimately not considered substantial evidence because the doctor deferred causation to a cardiologist and did not provide a definitive causation opinion on the stroke.

From the decision · page 3Neurology QME Dr. Rutchik evaluated applicant on September 23, 2020. After examining applicant, taking a history, and reviewing the medical record, Dr. Rutchik diagnosed applicant as having: "Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) - Cerebral infarction due to unspecified occlusion or stenosis of left cerebellar artery [...] Hypertension [and] Ventricular hypertrophy." (Joint Exh. MM, Jonathan S. Rutchik, M.D., September 23, 2020, p. 12.) Dr. Rutchik's deposition was taken on April 28, 2023. At the deposition the doctor testified that:

ADJ10821987 · March 1, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page