ADJ11800026 · September 28, 2026

The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to incomplete record and statutory time constraints.

From the decision · page 13Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding several issues, including finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the appropriate body parts and/or conditions including psychiatric injury, temporary disability, permanent disability and the applicability of section 4660.1(c), and apportionment. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision.

Record incomplete regarding injury AOE/COE, temporary disability, permanent disability, and apportionment

Favours Applicant prevailed

Led to granting of Petition for Reconsideration to allow further review

From the decision · page 13Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding several issues, including finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the appropriate body parts and/or conditions including psychiatric injury, temporary disability, permanent disability and the applicability of section 4660.1(c), and apportionment. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision.

Provided non-industrial apportionments supported by substantial evidence.

Opinion supported by substantial evidence and used for apportionment findings.

From the decision · page 10There is no question that taking NSAIDs can irritate gastric mucosa but with Helicobacter there will be at least 50% nonindustrial apportionment.” Defendant Exhibit D, p. 17. For the hypertensive disease, Dr. Grodan opined that “it is within reasonable medical probability that 60% apportionment is attributed to preexisting nonindustrial disease and 40% apportionment would be aggravation by the trauma he sustained with associated medical issues.” Defendant Exhibit D, p. 17. PQME Dr. Grodan further confirmed the non-industrial apportionment at his cross-examination. See Defendant Exhibit E, p. 18-20. Based thereon, this WCJ found that Dr. Grodan’s non-industrial apportionments are supported by substantial evidence.

Found no injury AOE/COE to labyrinthitis; substantial opinion.

Opinion found substantial and used to reject labyrinthitis injury claim.

From the decision · page 5Moreover, PQME Dr. Anderson observed that “as the applicant came to new physicians, there was mention of labyrinthitis/vertigo, post concussive cognitive impact, sleep disorder, and so forth, attributed to the subject injury. It is recognized that these initial consultations likely were conducted based on history alone in the absence of receipt of and review of previous medical records.” [Emphasis added] Defendant Exhibit F, p 52. Applicant’s attorney also cited reports which are not admitted into evidence, such as reports by Drs. Greer, Del Campo, Glendrange and Nick. Petition for Reconsideration, p 12 lines 3-11. Pursuant to Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc), a decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record. Id. at 478. And the referenced reports by Drs. Greer, Del Campo, Glendrange and Nick were not submitted at the trial. Based on the lack of causation discussion by PTP Dr. Ali, Dr. Ali’s opinion is not substantial. Based on the substantial opinion by PQME Dr. Anderson’s, this WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his labyrinthitis.

Indicated ophthalmologic injury was 100% industrial and contributed 25% to psychiatric disability.

Opinion used to support apportionment of psychiatric disability to industrial injury.

From the decision · page 625% of the permanent psychiatric disability is derived from his ophthalmologic injury. Dr. Vishteh indicated that his ophthalmologic injury was 100% industrial.” Defendant Exhibit K, p. 62, 63 and 69. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 4660.1, because applicant’s psychological injury arose out of physical injuries to his headaches and eyes, he is not entitled to an increase in permanent disability. Applicant failed to provide evidence to establish entitlement to an increase based on the exceptions codified in Labor Code Section 4660.1(c)(2).

Testified Parkinson's disease and Parkinsonian conditions are non-industrial and speculative.

Opinion found speculative and not substantial; Parkinson's disease not industrial.

From the decision · page 7Moreover, at PTP Dr. Mumtaz Ali’s cross-examination on 2/24/2025, Dr. Ali opined that: “Q: … Do you believe that he has Parkinson's? “A: No. Q: Do you believe that he has what can be described as a Parkinsonian syndrome? A: No. Q: Does he have any symptoms, to your knowledge as his treating neurologist, that mimic Parkinson's syndrome -- I mean symptoms? A: Yes, that is depression as well as his memory problem, dizziness.

Determined permanent and stationary date and psychiatric disability apportionment; found psychiatric injury and sleep disorder barred by LC § 4660.1.

Opinion used by WCJ to determine retro TD indemnity and P&S date; psychiatric injury and sleep disorder barred by LC § 4660.1.

From the decision · page 10Applicant contends that Applicant’s psychiatric injury and sleep disorder are not exclude by LC § 4660.1. This WCJ relied on psychiatry QME Dr. Peng’s opinions to determine the retro TD indemnity and P&S date. And this WCJ found that Applicant’s psychiatric injury and sleep disorder are barred by LC § 4660.1. Psychiatry QME Dr. Peng opined 60 GAF which translates to 15% WPI. Applicant has been temporarily totally disabled on a psychiatric basis from Applicant’s medical leave through April 10,2025. Applicant reached MMI on 4/10/2025. Per the industrial reports by QME Drs. Anderson and Vishtech, QME Dr. Peng opined that 65% psychiatric disability is apportioned to applicant’s industrial injury on 5/17/2017. QME Dr. Peng also assigned 30% apportionment to applicant’s Parkinson’s disease that has progressed over the last 5 years, and 5% to non-industrial factor. Defendant Exhibit K, p. 66-69.

Labor Code Section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days from transmission to Appeals Board per Labor Code Section 5909

Timely action on Petition for Reconsideration

From the decision · page 2Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase “The case is sent to the Recon board.” Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on July 29, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, September 27, 2026. The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, September 28, 2026. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).) 2 This decision is issued by or on Monday, September 28, 2026, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by section 5909(a). Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides notice to the Appeals Board.

Credibility of medical opinions based on admitted evidence and substantial evidence standards

From the decision · page 5Moreover, PQME Dr. Anderson observed that “as the applicant came to new physicians, there was mention of labyrinthitis/vertigo, post concussive cognitive impact, sleep disorder, and so forth, attributed to the subject injury. It is recognized that these initial consultations likely were conducted based on history alone in the absence of receipt of and review of previous medical records.” [Emphasis added] Defendant Exhibit F, p 52. Applicant’s attorney also cited reports which are not admitted into evidence, such as reports by Drs. Greer, Del Campo, Glendrange and Nick. Petition for Reconsideration, p 12 lines 3-11. Pursuant to Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc), a decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record. Id. at 478. And the referenced reports by Drs. Greer, Del Campo, Glendrange and Nick were not submitted at the trial. Based on the lack of causation discussion by PTP Dr. Ali, Dr. Ali’s opinion is not substantial. Based on the substantial opinion by PQME Dr. Anderson’s, this WCJ found that Applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to his labyrinthitis.

Medical evidence supporting non-industrial apportionment of disability

From the decision · page 10There is no question that taking NSAIDs can irritate gastric mucosa but with Helicobacter there will be at least 50% nonindustrial apportionment.” Defendant Exhibit D, p. 17. For the hypertensive disease, Dr. Grodan opined that “it is within reasonable medical probability that 60% apportionment is attributed to preexisting nonindustrial disease and 40% apportionment would be aggravation by the trauma he sustained with associated medical issues.” Defendant Exhibit D, p. 17. PQME Dr. Grodan further confirmed the non-industrial apportionment at his cross-examination. See Defendant Exhibit E, p. 18-20. Based thereon, this WCJ found that Dr. Grodan’s non-industrial apportionments are supported by substantial evidence.