What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant challenging WCJ's Findings and Award denying industrial injury claim; WCJ report adopted and incorporated by WCAB panel.
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.
Applicant failed to meet burden of proof for cumulative trauma injury; WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and supported by substantial evidence; defense witnesses' testimony found credible and more persuasive.
From the decision · page 10It was found that Applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, neck, lower back, waist and abdominal pain (possible hernia) based upon Applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof. It was specifically noted that his testimony was self-serving and lack credibility.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's testimony was self-serving and lacked credibility, while defense witnesses' testimony was credible and more persuasive.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credibility assessment led to the denial of the injury claim.
From the decision · page 10It was found that Applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, neck, lower back, waist and abdominal pain (possible hernia) based upon Applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof. It was specifically noted that his testimony was self-serving and lack credibility.
QME Dr. Kim's report contained inaccurate and inadequate history, undermining its evidentiary value on causation.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The report was rejected as substantial evidence, supporting denial of injury claim.
From the decision · page 11Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator Doctor Kim report dated January 21, 2021 contains an inadequate history. The doctor notes in the job description that Applicant worked 8 hours day and 5 days a week. Applicant's own trial testimony reflects a reduction of hours since the beginning of 2018. Similarly, the job duties described are inconsistent with the credible testimony of defense witness regarding weight lifting limitation. It also contains an inaccurate history regarding the 2016 incident. (It was reported, document, and treatment was declined). Accordingly, this reporting is not substantial evidence on the issue of causation because it is based on a false and inaccurate history.
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.
Report dated January 21, 2021 contains inadequate and inaccurate history, including incorrect job description and injury history; report not substantial evidence on causation.
Report based on false and inaccurate history, inconsistent with credible testimony and record evidence.
From the decision · page 11Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator Doctor Kim report dated January 21, 2021 contains an inadequate history. The doctor notes in the job description that Applicant worked 8 hours day and 5 days a week. Applicant's own trial testimony reflects a reduction of hours since the beginning of 2018. Similarly, the job duties described are inconsistent with the credible testimony of defense witness regarding weight lifting limitation. It also contains an inaccurate history regarding the 2016 incident. (It was reported, document, and treatment was declined). Accordingly, this reporting is not substantial evidence on the issue of causation because it is based on a false and inaccurate history.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]
Credibility determinations of witnesses by the trial judge are entitled to great weight due to observation of demeanor; decisions must be supported by substantial evidence.
WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight and not rejected due to lack of substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 1We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony found self-serving and lacking credibility; defense witnesses' testimony found credible and more persuasive.
From the decision · page 10It was found that Applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma injury to his right shoulder, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, right hand, neck, lower back, waist and abdominal pain (possible hernia) based upon Applicant's failure to meet his burden of proof. It was specifically noted that his testimony was self-serving and lack credibility.
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.