What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration on February 12, 2021, challenging the Findings and Award dated January 22, 2021, which awarded applicant permanent disability benefits based on QME Dr. Kim's report.
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 Board found Dr. Kim's QME report to be substantial medical evidence supporting the permanent disability rating and future medical care, as it was reasonable, credible, and consistent with applicant's testimony, while the opposing PTP report was less persuasive.
From the decision · page 4The QME Report of Donald Kim, M.D., is Substantial Medical Evidence on the Issue of Permanent Disability:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Kim's QME report provided a detailed and reasonable permanent disability rating of 19% for the right shoulder and right arm, including future medical care.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board relied on Dr. Kim's report as substantial medical evidence consistent with applicant's testimony to uphold the permanent disability award and future medical care.
From the decision · page 5The court extensively reviewed the entire medical record submitted, assessed them withapplicant's testimony, and concluded the QME's reports and opinions including the doctor's assessment of permanent disability were substantial medical evidence. Following applicant's Answer stated on page 4, Dr. Kim's opinion should be accepted as his report meets the requirements laid out in Milpitas Unified School District vs WCAB (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 (also known as "Guzman III"). The doctor's reasoning is clear and reasonable. It is not simply picked out of any chapter or method in the guides to achieve a desired result. Instead, a fair and reasonable explanation is made for the upper extremity impairment with a reasonable comparison made within the upper extremity chapter to adequately support the impairment provided.
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. Kim's QME report provided a reasonable and credible permanent disability rating of 19% for the right shoulder and right arm, including future medical care, based on surgical intervention and applicant's testimony. He supported the impairment rating with clear reasoning and analogy to Almaraz/Guzman.
The Board found Dr. Kim's report met the substantial medical evidence standard and was consistent with the totality of evidence including applicant's testimony.
From the decision · page 4The QME Report of Donald Kim, M.D., is Substantial Medical Evidence on the Issue of Permanent Disability:
Dr. Diltz's PTP report was questioned for not reviewing the QME's reports or explaining his contrasting conclusion of 0% impairment. The court allowed the report as probative but found it less persuasive than Dr. Kim's QME report.
Dr. Diltz did not review the QME's reports and failed to explain his differing impairment rating, making his report less persuasive.
From the decision · page 5In contrast, the medical report by Matthew Diltz, M.D., was questionable because he did not review the QME's reports or explain his contrasting conclusion. Applicant had requested to exclude the PTP report and impairment chart by Dr. Diltz (Exhibits A and B). However, the court did not exclude Dr. Diltz's report because it was probative to the case and assisted in the decision making. The court questions defendant's strategy of asserting the QME's opinion on the issue of permanent disability is not substantial medical evidence, andsolely relying on an incomplete reporting of the PTP who had failed to review the QME's opinion, especially when the court had offered the parties to development the record.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (Bolton) (1983) 48 CCC 566, 568
Substantial medical evidence means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues, more than a mere scintilla, and is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.
The Board applied this standard to find Dr. Kim's QME report substantial medical evidence supporting the permanent disability rating and future medical care.
From the decision · page 4Substantial medical evidence is evidence "which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (Bolton) (1983) 48 CCC 566, 568.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony consistent with Dr. Kim's opinions
From the decision · page 5Petitioner's arguments are based on selected facts from Dr. Kim's QME reports andwas not viewed from the totality of the evidence which included the applicant's testimony.
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.