What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant was denied by the WCAB panel after review of the WCJ's Report and Opinion on 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.
Applicant proved by preponderance of evidence that kidney damage was caused by use of Ibuprofen for industrial ankle injury pain, supported by PQME Dr. Scott Anderson's opinion.
From the decision · page 7APPLICANT PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DAMAGE TO HER KIDNEYS IS A COMPENSABLE CONSEQUENCE OF HER INDUSTRIAL INJURY
The WCJ's reliance on PQME Dr. Manijeh Ryan's opinion of 28% WPI based on cane and AFO use was found substantial and more credible than Dr. Thomas's 3% WPI based on range of motion. Defendant failed to prove apportionment by a preponderance of evidence.
From the decision · page 4THE EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION OF PQME DR. MANIJEH RYAN, M.D. PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT APPLICANT HAS 28%
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant uses a cane and AFO ankle brace for walking due to industrial left ankle injury
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported Dr. Ryan's 28% WPI rating and rejection of Dr. Thomas's lower rating
From the decision · page 3As a result of Applicant's admitted industrial injury she uses a cane and an AFO (ankle foot orthosis) ankle brace for walking.
Applicant's use of Ibuprofen for pain caused by industrial ankle injury contributed to kidney damage
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported compensability of kidney damage as industrial consequence
From the decision · page 7I still believe the Ibuprofen due to the injury contributed to her renal disease. The degree to which it contributed to it, I might be willing to reconsider. But I still believe it played a role because of the effect of using the medication more intensively, and using it at a point where she was older, and where her body was 5 more vulnerable to side effects from medication. (Joint Ex. 2 Page 36 Lines 1 § 9)
Defendant failed to prove apportionment of Applicant's permanent partial disability
Favours Applicant prevailed
Resulted in full credit to Applicant's WPI rating without reduction
From the decision · page 5Defendant holds the affirmative on the issue of apportionment of Applicant's permanent partial disability. Dr. Ryan found no basis for apportionment and Dr. Thomas testified at his deposition that an apportionment analysis would require speculation. (OOD Page 6, Def. Ex. D Pages 21 § 22) Therefore, Defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that apportionment of Applicant's left ankle.
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 has 28% Whole Person Impairment for left ankle injury based on use of cane and AFO support per AMA Guides 5th Edition Table 17-5; no apportionment found.
Dr. Ryan's opinion was found substantial and more credible than Dr. Thomas's opinion, supported by Applicant's credible testimony and medical evidence.
From the decision · page 4THE EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION OF PQME DR. MANIJEH RYAN, M.D. PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT APPLICANT HAS 28%
Found 3% WPI based on ankle motion impairment per AMA Guides Table 17-11; did not consider cane and AFO use; apportionment analysis speculative.
Dr. Thomas's opinion was rejected for lack of consideration of all AMA Guides and speculative apportionment.
From the decision · page 5The expert medical opinion of Dr. Timmy Thomas did not address Whole Person Impairment pursuant to Table 17-5 of the AMA Guides 5th Edition. Applicant is entitled to have the whole of the AMA Guides considered when a physician is determining her WPI. There is no evidence in the record contradicting the determination Applicant uses a cane and AFO support. Dr. Thomas' finding of 3% WPI was found to be insubstantial because he has not considered all of the AMA Guides 5th Edition to establish his expert medical opinion.
Applicant's use of Ibuprofen for industrial ankle injury contributed to kidney damage; apportioned 20% industrial cause of kidney damage resulting in 13% WPI for kidneys.
Dr. Anderson's opinion was found substantial and credible based on medical history and records review.
From the decision · page 7Applicant was evaluated by Dr. Scott Anderson, M.D. as a Panel Qualified Medical Examiner regarding internal medicine issues. Dr. Anderson performed an examination on February 12, 2021 and issued a report with that date. (App. Ex. 2) Dr. Anderson was deposed on September 20, 2021. (Joint Ex. 2) Dr. Anderson's records review documents Applicant's treatment with Kaiser between 1980 and 2020. (App. Ex. 2 Pages 11- 46) Dr. Anderson summarized this history when he said:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code Section 5903
Governs reconsideration petitions and WCJ authority
From the decision · page 4In any case that has been regularly assigned to a workers' compensation judge, the workers' compensation judge shall have full power, jurisdiction and authority to hear and determine all issues of fact and law presented and to issue interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case, including the fixing of the amount of the bond required in Labor Code section 3715. Orders, findings and decisions and awards issued by a workers' compensation judge shall be the orders, findings, decisions and awards of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board unless reconsideration is granted. (Title 8, CCR § 10330)
AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition
Used to determine Whole Person Impairment ratings
From the decision · page 4THE EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION OF PQME DR. MANIJEH RYAN, M.D. PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT APPLICANT HAS 28%
California Labor Code
Labor Code Sections 3202.5 and 5705
Burden of proof and compensability of consequences
From the decision · page 6The party holding the affirmative on an issue bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence.1 Defendant has accepted that Applicant suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her left ankle on June 15, 2017. Defendant denied liability for Applicant's claim of injury to her kidneys as a compensable consequence of her admitted industrial injury. Applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that her kidneys were injured as a compensable consequence of her industrial injury.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony of using a cane and AFO support for walking
From the decision · page 3As a result of Applicant's admitted industrial injury she uses a cane and an AFO (ankle foot orthosis) ankle brace for walking.
Medical records and expert reports supporting kidney damage as compensable consequence
From the decision · page 7Applicant was evaluated by Dr. Scott Anderson, M.D. as a Panel Qualified Medical Examiner regarding internal medicine issues. Dr. Anderson performed an examination on February 12, 2021 and issued a report with that date. (App. Ex. 2) Dr. Anderson was deposed on September 20, 2021. (Joint Ex. 2) Dr. Anderson's records review documents Applicant's treatment with Kaiser between 1980 and 2020. (App. Ex. 2 Pages 11- 46) Dr. Anderson summarized this history when he said:
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.