Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (Bolton) (1983) 48 CCC 566
Substantial evidence must be relevant, reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support findings.
Applied to the medical reports of Dr. Brendel as substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 19The parties jointly offered Panel QME reports from David Brendel Ph.D. as joint exhibits.
Substantial 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; Teitelbaum
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc)
Medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and set forth reasoning.
Applied to evaluate the medical opinion of Dr. Brendel for substantial evidence of causation.
From the decision · page 1All decisions by a WCJ must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lamb v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; LeVesque v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Substantial evidence has been
described as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion and must be more than a mere scintilla. (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].) To constitute substantial
evidence "...a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must
not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history,
and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not
substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer
germane, on inadequate medical histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories.
Medical opinion also fails to support the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation,
Labor Code 3208.3(b)(1)
Employee must demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that actual events of employment were predominant cause of psychiatric injury.
Applied to determine predominant cause of psychiatric injury by actual events of employment.
From the decision · page 6Pursuant to Labor Code 3208.3(b) (1) an employee shall demonstrate by a preponderance
of evidence that actual events of employment were predominant as to all causes combined of the
psychiatric injury.
Labor Code 5705
Burden of proof rests on party holding affirmative of the issue.
Applied to affirm applicant's burden to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
From the decision · page 16Pursuant to Labor Code 5705, "The burden of proof rests upon the party or lien claimant
holding the affirmative of the issue." The applicant has the affirmative on proving injury arising
out of employment and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). Evidence can be offered in
multiple forms. It could be in the form of testimony or documents.
Labor Code 3202.5
All parties must meet evidentiary burden by preponderance of evidence.
Applied to evidentiary standards for all issues in the case.
From the decision · page 16Labor Code 3202.5 requires all parties and lien claimants to meet the evidentiary burden
of proof on all issues by a "preponderance of the evidence." This means "evidence that, when
weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth."
Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241 (Appeals Board en banc)
Multilevel analysis for psychiatric injury claims with good-faith personnel action defense.
Applied to analyze the good-faith personnel action defense raised by defendant.
From the decision · page 17In the decision of Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., (2001) 66 CCC 241 (appeals board en banc),
the appeals board enumerated a multilevel analysis for cases in which the employee claims a
psychiatric injury and the defense of a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good-faith personnel action has
been raised. The process is: