What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
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 panel QME Dr. Robert Fisher's medical reports constituted substantial evidence that the applicant sustained injury to his internal system-diabetes arising out of and in the course of employment, supported by uncontroverted applicant testimony and lack of contrary evidence from defendants.
From the decision · page 4In considering the evidence provided by the parties and considering the admitted evidence, with respect to applicant's internal system-diabetes claim, the parties selected Robert Fisher, MD, as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator in the field of Internal Medicine. In Dr. Fisher's Medical Report dated 03/06/2019, Dr. Fisher opined that when the applicant was restricted to light duty after his industrial injury to his right shoulder, his physical activity was markedly reduced, and it is with reasonable medical probability that his blood sugar level became elevated because of the lack of exercise. Joint Exhibit X, Medical Report of PQME Robert Fisher, MD QME dated 03/06/2019, page 58, par. 2, EAMS DOC ID NO.: 72194444. Defendants presented no evidence to the contrary.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Robert Fisher's medical reports opining that the applicant's diabetes was industrially related due to reduced physical activity and stress after right shoulder injury
Favours Applicant prevailed
These reports constituted substantial evidence relied upon by the panel to find industrial injury to diabetes.
From the decision · page 4In considering the evidence provided by the parties and considering the admitted evidence, with respect to applicant's internal system-diabetes claim, the parties selected Robert Fisher, MD, as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator in the field of Internal Medicine. In Dr. Fisher's Medical Report dated 03/06/2019, Dr. Fisher opined that when the applicant was restricted to light duty after his industrial injury to his right shoulder, his physical activity was markedly reduced, and it is with reasonable medical probability that his blood sugar level became elevated because of the lack of exercise. Joint Exhibit X, Medical Report of PQME Robert Fisher, MD QME dated 03/06/2019, page 58, par. 2, EAMS DOC ID NO.: 72194444. Defendants presented no evidence to the contrary.
Applicant's uncontroverted testimony and lack of contrary evidence from defendants
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of industrial injury to diabetes and the credibility of Dr. Fisher's opinions.
From the decision · page 4Based on the totality of the medical evidence presented to this Court, and the applicant's testimony which was uncontroverted, it was found that the applicant sustained injury to his internal system-diabetes 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.
Dr. Fisher opined that the applicant's diabetes was industrially related due to reduced physical activity after right shoulder injury and stress, and rated 10% whole person impairment with 50% apportionment to non-industrial factors.
Dr. Fisher's medical reports were found to constitute substantial evidence and were relied upon by the panel to find industrial injury to diabetes.
From the decision · page 4In considering the evidence provided by the parties and considering the admitted evidence, with respect to applicant's internal system-diabetes claim, the parties selected Robert Fisher, MD, as the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator in the field of Internal Medicine. In Dr. Fisher's Medical Report dated 03/06/2019, Dr. Fisher opined that when the applicant was restricted to light duty after his industrial injury to his right shoulder, his physical activity was markedly reduced, and it is with reasonable medical probability that his blood sugar level became elevated because of the lack of exercise. Joint Exhibit X, Medical Report of PQME Robert Fisher, MD QME dated 03/06/2019, page 58, par. 2, EAMS DOC ID NO.: 72194444. Defendants presented no evidence to the contrary.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v Marshalls (2005) 70 CCC 604 (Appeals Board En Banc)
Substantial evidence standard for medical opinions in workers' compensation cases
Dr. Fisher's medical opinions were found to be substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to diabetes.
From the decision · page 5IV. ISSUE RAISED DEFENDANTS' CLAIM THAT PQME DR ROBERT FISHER'S MEDICAL REPORTS AND OPINIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SPECIOUS AND IS CONJECTURE, SINCE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. As previously stated in the Discussion above, PQME Robert Fisher, MD QME concluded with reasonable medical probability that the applicant sustained injury to his internal system-diabetes as a result of his industrial injury. It should be noted that defendants did not provide any evidence or witness to rebut applicant's internal system-diabetes claim. Dr. Fisher's Medical Findings, based on reasonable medical probabilities which constituted substantial evidence, was based on examining the entire record, by taking a detailed history of the applicant, evaluating the applicant, reviewing all available medical records and diagnostic testing, and formulated his medical opinion pursuant to his specialty as a Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine Qualified Medical Examiner. His opinions were a probative force on the medical issues, not speculative and are fully in accordance with Escobedo v Marshalls (2005) 70 CCC 604 (Appeals Board En Banc) and Braewood
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 159, 164
Medical opinion credibility and substantial evidence requirements
Dr. Fisher's medical opinions were credible and of solid value, constituting substantial evidence.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's uncontroverted testimony and lack of contrary evidence from defendants
From the decision · page 4Based on the totality of the medical evidence presented to this Court, and the applicant's testimony which was uncontroverted, it was found that the applicant sustained injury to his internal system-diabetes arising out of and in the course of employment.
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.