ADJ11102439 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review.

Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the November 25, 2024 WCJ Findings and Award; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.

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.

Other disputed issueDefendant prevailedcervical spine · lumbar spine · left shoulder · thoracic spine · head · bilateral lower extremities · right hip · left hip · dental · hypertension/cardiovascular · gastritis/GERD · vertigo · anxiety disorder · sleep disorder

The Appeals Board found the record was not properly developed and the WCJ did not sufficiently explain the basis of the decision or the role of Dr. Pietruszka, warranting further review and reconsideration.

From the decision · page 6a 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 conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Based on our review, we are not persuaded that the record is properly developed. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's decision without additional development of the record. The WCJ does not

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.

otherRejected

Dr. Fait's reports were found not persuasive due to unsupported findings and lack of medical records, and his opinion was rejected by the WCJ.

The WCJ did not find Dr. Fait's report to be the most persuasive evidence due to unsupported findings and incomplete medical records.

From the decision · page 4Petitioner argues that WCJ must scrutinize the underlying facts relied upon by the physician, to determine whether his options constituted substantial medical evidence. However, as pointed out by the WCJ, she is entitled to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on that which she deems most persuasive. Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2nd 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221]. Petitioner generally asserts throughout the Petition that the WCJ should have relied upon Dr. Fait in this matter. However, the WCJ did not find his report to be the most persuasive in this matter. In fact, Dr. Fait' s report contained numerous unsupported findings. He based his initial conclusion on an incomplete medical report as he did not have "any medical records." (Exhibit "C") page 1. He stated under "Discussion," I have no medical records of any kind upon which to formulate an opinion... " Para 1. Despite this, he formed a concluding regarding injures sustained by the applicant and never wavered from that, even when evidence of the orthopedic injuries was presented.

PTPRelied upon

Dr. Pietruszka was the treating physician whose medical opinion was given full weight by the WCJ and relied upon for permanent disability ratings.

The WCJ gave full weight to Dr. Pietruszka's medical opinion as the treating physician and found it credible and persuasive.

From the decision · page 5The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board may choose among conflicting medical reports those which it deems most persuasive, but having done so, the board must, in all fairness to the applicant, give full weight to the findings of the doctor whose report it relies on. (Marm,. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 333, 334 [71 Cal.Rptr. 237].). It is well settled that the board, if it relies at all on the report and testimony of a medical examiner must give full weight to all of the findings of that doctor, and may not omit a factor of disability described by him. An award which ignores such factors lacks substantial evidence to support it. (Franklin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 682, 684 (96 Cal. Rptr. 201, 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 429].) Robles v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd., 63 Cal. Comp. Case 265, 268-269. Dr. Pietruszka was applicant's treating physician and the court may rely upon his opinion if found to be credible and more persuasive that the PQME report. The applicant had numerous treating physicians during the course of this lengthy litigation.

ADJ11102439 · March 10, 2025

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