Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions to constitute substantial evidence.
The Appeals Board found that Dr. Green's opinion did not meet this standard as it lacked analysis of ADLs and proper reasoning to rebut the CVC.
From the decision · page 5II.
To constitute substantial evidence "... a 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).) "When the foundation of an expert's testimony is determined to be inadequate as a matter
of law, we are not bound by an apparent conflict in the evidence created by his bare conclusions."
(People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 139.)
The WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is
insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62
Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional
mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Board may not leave matters
undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p.
Labor Code section 5909
The Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(a).
The Appeals Board timely acted on the Petition for Reconsideration within the 60-day period as required by section 5909(a).
From the decision · page 4I.
Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed
denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
Impacts of multiple impairments on activities of daily living (ADLs) must be separately established before combining impairments under the Combined Values Chart (CVC), and synergy must be shown to increase or amplify the impact on overlapping ADLs to rebut the CVC.
The Appeals Board applied Vigil to explain the correct legal analysis for rebutting the CVC and found the prior evaluations did not meet this standard.
From the decision · page 6(Vigil v. County of Kern, 2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 23 at *7-8, (Appeals Board
en banc).)