ADJ11348013 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings and Amended Award of August 5, 2021, affirmed

Petition for Reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; WCJ Findings and Amended Award of August 5, 2021, reviewed

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/COEApplicant prevailedright shoulder

The WCJ found applicant sustained industrial injury to the right shoulder on July 25, 2017, based on credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. McGahan, despite defendant's challenge to evidence admission and applicant credibility.

From the decision · page 6Based upon Applicant's credible testimony, the treatment records, and the findings by QME Dr. McGahan, it is found that Applicant sustained injury to his right shoulder arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on July 25, 2017.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant sustained injury to right shoulder on July 25, 2017, arising out of and in the course of employment

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.

QMENot substantial evidence · orthopedic surgery

Found industrial injury causing symptomatic outgrowth from degenerative joint disease; reports not relied upon for final injury finding due to retirement and incomplete reporting.

Reports not relied upon for final injury finding; defendant's petition for reconsideration challenged admission but error was harmless.

From the decision · page 9It appears that applicant erred in omitting the reports of Dr. Hanley from the pre-trial conference statement. Defendant's position is that the reports should not have been admitted into evidence based on a strict reading of section 5502. However, we find this error to be harmless as neither the WCJ nor the Appeals Board relied upon the reporting of Dr. Hanley to find applicant's injury industrial. Moreover, the WCJ always retains discretion to determine if evidence should be admitted into the record as a matter of due process and so that their decision is based on substantial evidence. As defendant admits in its petition, Dr. Hanley retired and his reporting was not complete. Dr. Hanley's reporting cannot constitute substantial medical evidence upon which an award may issue. Thus, defendant was not harmed by the admission of Dr. Hanley's reports. Furthermore, Dr. McGahan became the QME precisely because Dr. Hanley retired, and the parties stipulated the Dr. McGahan was the QME. Any claim by defendant that it would have obtained a "rebuttal witness" is without merit.

QMERelied upon · orthopedic surgery

Found industrial injury to right shoulder on July 25, 2017, as an aggravation of preexisting disease, supported by history, exam, imaging, and medical records; recommended treatment.

Opinions constitute substantial medical evidence supporting industrial injury finding.

From the decision · page 6Applicant had a QME evaluation by Dr. Patrick McGahan on April 25, 2020. Dr. McGahan found an industrial injury to the right shoulder on July 25, 2017 based on the history, physical exam, imaging, and medical records. Dr. McGahan found an aggravation of a preexisting disease and recommended treatment through the workers' compensation system. (Joint Exhibit DD)

ADJ11348013 · August 22, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page