What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on April 12, 2021, except amended to include findings of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to right knee and right ankle, and claims to back, left shoulder, and chest.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on April 12, 2021; WCJ recommended denial of the Petition for Reconsideration; WCAB issued Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration affirming the F&A with amendments.
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 found substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to right knee and right ankle, and claims to back, left shoulder, and chest, based on credible testimony and medical evidence.
From the decision · page 4Accordingly, we grant reconsideration, and we affirm the F&A except that we amend the F&A to include the findings that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her right knee, and right ankle, and that she claimed injury AOE/COE to her back, left shoulder, and chest.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony describing the fall and injury mechanism
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment despite defendant's contrary testimony.
From the decision · page 3The applicant was found to be credible at trial. [see Finding of Fact #7] There was no evidence put forth that the applicant faked her injury other than speculation on the part of the employer. The panel QME noted that the mechanism of injury was supported by the medical reports at the time of injury, and that the diagnosis was consistent with the applicant's description of injury. While the employer testified the door to the stall swung only inward, the applicant testified she did not recall if the door swung in or out. The facts of this case do support an industrial injury, considering all of the testimony and medical evidence introduced. (Report, p. 5.)
Medical opinions of Dr. Chiu consistent with contemporaneous medical reports and injury description
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provided medical support for the claimed injury and mechanism, relied upon by the WCAB.
From the decision · page 2It is my opinion that the applicant tripped and suffered a ground level fall on March 3, 2017. This diagnosis is most consistent with the description of her original injury (her right foot tripped over the leg of a restroom stall divider; she fell forward onto her hands and onto her right knee). This opinion is supported by documentation in the contemporaneous medical reports. (Joint Exh. Y, Jason J. Chiu, M.D., December 19, 2017, p. 20.)
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.
Applicant sustained right lateral ankle sprain, right knee contusion, thoracic myofascial strain, and left pectoralis tendon strain from March 3, 2017 fall; no lumbar spine injury; 4% permanent disability; needs anti-inflammatory medication for right knee and ankle; reached MMI on December 19, 2017.
Dr. Chiu's opinions were consistent with contemporaneous medical reports and supported the claimed injury mechanism; his opinions were relied upon by the WCAB.
From the decision · page 2Orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Jason J. Chiu, M.D., evaluated applicant on December 19, 2017. Dr. Chiu examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. The diagnoses included right lateral ankle sprain and right knee contusion. Dr. Chiu stated:
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
Credibility of witness testimony is entitled to great weight in workers' compensation cases.
The WCJ's credibility findings were upheld and relied upon to support injury findings.
From the decision · page 3It is well established that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].) Also, as noted above, QME Dr. Chiu found the diagnoses to be consistent with the claimed mechanism of injury, and that the injury claim was
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony at trial
From the decision · page 3The applicant was found to be credible at trial. [see Finding of Fact #7] There was no evidence put forth that the applicant faked her injury other than speculation on the part of the employer. The panel QME noted that the mechanism of injury was supported by the medical reports at the time of injury, and that the diagnosis was consistent with the applicant's description of injury. While the employer testified the door to the stall swung only inward, the applicant testified she did not recall if the door swung in or out. The facts of this case do support an industrial injury, considering all of the testimony and medical evidence introduced. (Report, p. 5.)
Medical reports contemporaneous with injury consistent with claimed mechanism
From the decision · page 2It is my opinion that the applicant tripped and suffered a ground level fall on March 3, 2017. This diagnosis is most consistent with the description of her original injury (her right foot tripped over the leg of a restroom stall divider; she fell forward onto her hands and onto her right knee). This opinion is supported by documentation in the contemporaneous medical reports. (Joint Exh. Y, Jason J. Chiu, M.D., December 19, 2017, p. 20.)
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.