ADJ11624477 · March 15, 2021

The only medical evidence in the record, from QME Dr. Lineback, supported industrial causation, and applicant's testimony regarding exposure was found credible; no contrary evidence was submitted by defendant.

From the decision · page 4Here, the reports from Dr. Lineback, and his deposition testimony are the only medical evidence in the trial record. As noted above, having examined applicant and reviewed the extensive medical record Dr. Lineback agreed with the opinions of treating physician Dr. Reyes, and academic pulmonologist, Dr. Kafi, that applicant's lung/respiratory system condition was the result of his exposure to aluminum dust while employed by defendant. (Joint Exh. 2, pp. 2 § 3; Joint Exh. 3, p. 3.) Dr. Lineback explained in detail his analysis and the reasoning for his conclusion that applicant sustained a lung/respiratory injury AOE/COE. (see e.g. Joint Exh. 5, deposition transcript, pp. 23 § 24; Joint Exh. 3, pp. 2 § 3.) Dr. Lineback's opinion regarding the cause of applicant's condition is based on pertinent facts, an appropriate examination of applicant, and an accurate history. Thus his opinions, as stated in his reports and deposition testimony, constitute substantial evidence. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. supra; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

The only medical evidence in the record, from QME Dr. Lineback, supported industrial causation and was based on examination, review of records, and agreement with treating and academic pulmonologists.

Favours Applicant prevailed

No contrary medical evidence was submitted; the WCAB found this evidence substantial and persuasive.

From the decision · page 4Here, the reports from Dr. Lineback, and his deposition testimony are the only medical evidence in the trial record. As noted above, having examined applicant and reviewed the extensive medical record Dr. Lineback agreed with the opinions of treating physician Dr. Reyes, and academic pulmonologist, Dr. Kafi, that applicant's lung/respiratory system condition was the result of his exposure to aluminum dust while employed by defendant. (Joint Exh. 2, pp. 2 § 3; Joint Exh. 3, p. 3.) Dr. Lineback explained in detail his analysis and the reasoning for his conclusion that applicant sustained a lung/respiratory injury AOE/COE. (see e.g. Joint Exh. 5, deposition transcript, pp. 23 § 24; Joint Exh. 3, pp. 2 § 3.) Dr. Lineback's opinion regarding the cause of applicant's condition is based on pertinent facts, an appropriate examination of applicant, and an accurate history. Thus his opinions, as stated in his reports and deposition testimony, constitute substantial evidence. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. supra; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

Applicant's testimony regarding exposure to aluminum dust was found credible by the WCJ and given great weight.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credibility of applicant's testimony was a key basis for finding injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that applicant's testimony regarding his work for defendant, including his exposure to aluminum dust, was credible and he stated that the finding of injury AOE/COE was, "Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical report(s) of QME James F. Lineback, M.D." (F&A, p. 5, Opinion on Decision.) It has long been well established that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358]; Nash v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1793 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 324]; Greenberg v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 792 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 242].) The WCJ

Defendant failed to submit any evidence of non-industrial causation or to contradict the applicant's evidence.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The absence of contrary evidence meant the applicant's evidence was unopposed and determinative.

From the decision · page 5[D]efendant had the opportunity to develop the record before filing the DOR based on the record provided. Thus, the court is of the opinion that defendant carries the burden to provide the doctor and the court evidence of non-industrial causes to dispute the findings. Here, defendant failed its burden to show non- industrial causation. (Report, p. 7.) Again, we agree with the WCJ's analysis of the trial record and the applicable case law. Based thereon, we will not disturb his decision. Accordingly, we affirm the F&A.

Dr. Lineback opined that applicant's interstitial lung disease should be considered job related and treated on an industrial basis, agreeing with Dr. Kafi's opinion that the disease should be covered by workers' compensation due to long history of aluminum exposure.

His opinions were based on examination, review of medical records, and were found to constitute substantial evidence by the WCAB.

From the decision · page 3remains my opinion that this patient's interstitial lung disease should be considered job related and should be treated on an industrial basis. (Joint Exh. 3, p. 3.)

Dr. Kafi opined that applicant's interstitial lung disease should be covered by workers' compensation given his long history of aluminum exposure.

QME Dr. Lineback agreed with Dr. Kafi's opinion and the WCAB relied on this agreement in affirming industrial causation.

From the decision · page 2There is no information in either the patient's job description or the material safety data sheets that I reviewed that would change the opinions I reached in my P&S report dated July 12, 2019. As I stated in that report, the patient had been seen by an academic pulmonologist, Dr. Kafi, in the pulmonary clinic at USC Medical Center, who felt that this patient's interstitial lung disease should be covered by workers' compensation "given his long history of aluminum exposure". Dr. Kafi also noted a well-known association between chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and interstitial lung disease. There is no information in these additional documents that would prevent me from agreeing with Dr. Kafi's opinions expressed in his report of June 22, 2019. It, therefore,

Dr. Reyes opined that applicant's lung/respiratory system condition was the result of his exposure to aluminum dust while employed by defendant.

QME Dr. Lineback agreed with Dr. Reyes' opinion and the WCAB relied on this agreement in affirming industrial causation.

From the decision · page 4Here, the reports from Dr. Lineback, and his deposition testimony are the only medical evidence in the trial record. As noted above, having examined applicant and reviewed the extensive medical record Dr. Lineback agreed with the opinions of treating physician Dr. Reyes, and academic pulmonologist, Dr. Kafi, that applicant's lung/respiratory system condition was the result of his exposure to aluminum dust while employed by defendant. (Joint Exh. 2, pp. 2 § 3; Joint Exh. 3, p. 3.) Dr. Lineback explained in detail his analysis and the reasoning for his conclusion that applicant sustained a lung/respiratory injury AOE/COE. (see e.g. Joint Exh. 5, deposition transcript, pp. 23 § 24; Joint Exh. 3, pp. 2 § 3.) Dr. Lineback's opinion regarding the cause of applicant's condition is based on pertinent facts, an appropriate examination of applicant, and an accurate history. Thus his opinions, as stated in his reports and deposition testimony, constitute substantial evidence. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. supra; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

Lab. Code § 3202.5; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

Employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence; preponderance is the evidence that has more convincing force and greater probability of truth.

Applied to determine whether applicant met burden of proof for industrial causation.

From the decision · page 3It is well known that the employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 (80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) "Preponderance of the evidence" is defined by section 3202.5 as the "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth. When weighing the evidence, the test is not the relative number of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence." (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) For the purpose of meeting the causation

South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

For workers' compensation injury claims, it is sufficient if work is a contributing cause of the injury.

Applied to determine whether applicant's work contributed to his lung condition.

From the decision · page 4requirement in a workers' compensation injury claim, it is sufficient if the work is a contributing cause of the injury. (South Coast Framing, supra, at 298-299.)

Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692

Applicant must prove industrial causation by a reasonable probability, not scientific certainty.

Applied to accept medical evidence showing reasonable probability of industrial causation.

From the decision · page 4"The applicant in a workers' compensation proceeding has the burden of proving industrial causation by a `reasonable probability.' (citation) That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700 § 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Medical evidence that industrial evidence was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].)

Applicant's testimony regarding his work for defendant, including his exposure to aluminum dust, was found credible by the WCJ and given great weight.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ found that applicant's testimony regarding his work for defendant, including his exposure to aluminum dust, was credible and he stated that the finding of injury AOE/COE was, "Based upon applicant's credible testimony and the medical report(s) of QME James F. Lineback, M.D." (F&A, p. 5, Opinion on Decision.) It has long been well established that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505]; Sheffield Medical Group v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Perez) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 868 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 358]; Nash v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1793 [59 Cal.Comp.Cases 324]; Greenberg v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 792 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 242].) The WCJ

No evidence was submitted by defendant that contradicted or was inconsistent with the reports from Dr. Lineback or applicant's testimony.

From the decision · page 5Finally, as to whether the record should be further developed, as stated above, Dr. Lineback agreed with Dr. Kafi's and Dr. Reyes' opinions that applicant's lung condition was work related. Obviously, defendant was aware of Dr. Lineback's opinions and his reasoning, before it filed the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. Also, defendant "objected that Dr. Lineback's reports are not substantial medical evidence." (MOH/SOE, August 31, 2020, p. 3.) However, defendant submitted no evidence that contradicted or was inconsistent with the reports from Dr. Lineback or applicant's testimony.