ADJ12221422 · July 6, 2026

The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence in the reports of Dr. Schames and Dr. Pietruszka supporting the dental injury, contrary to the WCJ's finding based solely on lack of testimony.

From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Dental Trauma Center (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Orders (F&O) of April 15, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: 1) applicant while employed on March 9, 2019 as a journeyman electrician sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, psyche, right knee, bilateral shoulders, left elbow, right knee, and right ankle; and that 2) applicant did not sustain a dental injury. Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant did not sustain a dental injury because: 1) the WCJ failed to address substantial medical evidence by failing to analyze, discuss or mention Dr. Schames’ and Dr. Pietruszka’s reporting and, “[i]nstead, the WCJ denied the claim solely because ‘no testimony’ was elicited”; 2) the decision should be based on medical evidence and not lay testimony; 3) if the WCJ thought the evidence was insufficient, then the record should have been developed; and 4) the finding regarding substantial evidence requires medical reasoning of solid value. No party filed an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

Substantial medical evidence in reports of Dr. Schames and Dr. Pietruszka supporting dental injury

Favours Applicant prevailed

This evidence contradicted the WCJ's finding based solely on lack of testimony and supported finding of dental injury

From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Dental Trauma Center (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Orders (F&O) of April 15, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: 1) applicant while employed on March 9, 2019 as a journeyman electrician sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, psyche, right knee, bilateral shoulders, left elbow, right knee, and right ankle; and that 2) applicant did not sustain a dental injury. Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant did not sustain a dental injury because: 1) the WCJ failed to address substantial medical evidence by failing to analyze, discuss or mention Dr. Schames’ and Dr. Pietruszka’s reporting and, “[i]nstead, the WCJ denied the claim solely because ‘no testimony’ was elicited”; 2) the decision should be based on medical evidence and not lay testimony; 3) if the WCJ thought the evidence was insufficient, then the record should have been developed; and 4) the finding regarding substantial evidence requires medical reasoning of solid value. No party filed an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

Diagnosed TMJ dysfunction, bruxism, facial pain, gum inflammation, and functional impairment related to industrial injury; opined dental injuries were industrial and contributed to inflammation of gums due to impaired oral hygiene from other industrial injuries.

The Appeals Board relied on Dr. Schames' detailed medical report and reasoning as substantial evidence of dental injury.

From the decision · page 21. Report of Mayer Schames, DDS dated October 1, 2020, diagnosing TMJ dysfunction, bruxism, facial pain, gum inflammation, and functional impairment.

Documented ongoing craniofacial symptomatology including headaches and facial complaints consistent with dental/TMJ pathology.

His report was admitted as the only medical evidence addressing the dental system alongside Dr. Schames' report.

From the decision · page 22. Report of Marvin Pietruszka, MD dated December 16, 2019, documenting ongoing craniofacial symptomatology including headaches and facial complaints consistent with dental/TMJ pathology.

Referenced and summarized Dr. Schames' dental report and the industrial accident history supporting dental injury.

The Appeals Board relied on Dr. Perelman's report confirming the dental injury evidence.

From the decision · page 6At the mandatory settlement conference on April 23, 2022, applicant only identified reporting from October 1, 2020, by David Schames, D.D.S., one of lien claimant’s providers, and at trial on June 3, 2025, applicant only submitted the October 1, 2020 report (Exhibit 4). However, according to the reporting of QME Ronald B. Perelman, M.D. (Exhibit 1, 9/15/2021), applicant was evaluated by Dr. Schames on June 22, 2020. In the “ADDENDUM”- MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW section of the report under DENTAL RECORDS it lists a June 22, 2020 record from The Dental Trauma Center, Initial Report in the Field of Dentistry, by Mayer Schames, DDS/David Schames, DDS. The summary states that: History: Patient was involved in an industrial accident while working for defendant as an electrician. On the date of injury, she was standing on a truck, about 5 feet off the ground, when she fell, landing in a crevice on a subway track. She struck the back and right side of her head against a steel railroad track and the hard hat she was wearing was knocked off her head.

Lab. Code, § 5705

Burden of proof on party holding affirmative of issue by preponderance of evidence

Lien claimant must prove injury by preponderance of evidence as standing in shoes of injured worker

From the decision · page 4Pursuant to section 5705, “The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue.” (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Section 3202.5 states that, “All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Lab. Code, § 3202.5; Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brower) (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 137, 150 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 548, 557.) Where a lien claimant, rather than the injured worker, litigates the issue of entitlement to injury, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish injury by preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc., (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1592 (Appeals Board en banc.) An 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, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a) & 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the “proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or ‘convincing.‘” (McAllister v.

Lab. Code, § 3202.5

All parties and lien claimants must meet evidentiary burden by preponderance of evidence

Applies to all parties and lien claimants

From the decision · page 4Pursuant to section 5705, “The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant holding the affirmative of the issue.” (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Section 3202.5 states that, “All parties and lien claimants shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Lab. Code, § 3202.5; Boehm & Associates v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Brower) (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 137, 150 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 548, 557.) Where a lien claimant, rather than the injured worker, litigates the issue of entitlement to injury, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish injury by preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc., (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1592 (Appeals Board en banc.) An 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, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a) & 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the “proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or ‘convincing.‘” (McAllister v.

Lab. Code, § 3600(a)

Injury arising out of and in the course of employment liability

Liability exists for injury arising out of and in the course of employment

From the decision · page 9Code, § 3600(a), emphasis added.) Thus, we will amend Finding of Fact 1 to correct the term of art to “course.” Accordingly, we grant lien claimant’s Petition, affirm the F&O, except that we amend it to find that applicant’s injury was in the course of employment and that applicant sustained dental injury. (Findings of Fact, 1 and 2). For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that lien claimant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the April 15, 2026 Findings and Order is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the F&O issued by the WCJ on April 15, 2026 is AFFIRMED except that it is AMENDED as follows:

Substantial medical evidence in reports of Dr. Schames and Dr. Pietruszka

From the decision · page 1Lien claimant Dental Trauma Center (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Orders (F&O) of April 15, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that: 1) applicant while employed on March 9, 2019 as a journeyman electrician sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, head, psyche, right knee, bilateral shoulders, left elbow, right knee, and right ankle; and that 2) applicant did not sustain a dental injury. Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant did not sustain a dental injury because: 1) the WCJ failed to address substantial medical evidence by failing to analyze, discuss or mention Dr. Schames’ and Dr. Pietruszka’s reporting and, “[i]nstead, the WCJ denied the claim solely because ‘no testimony’ was elicited”; 2) the decision should be based on medical evidence and not lay testimony; 3) if the WCJ thought the evidence was insufficient, then the record should have been developed; and 4) the finding regarding substantial evidence requires medical reasoning of solid value. No party filed an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.