Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]
A decision whether applicant sustained a cumulative injury must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record.
The WCAB must ensure that findings of injury are supported by substantial medical evidence, and that medical opinions are based on reasonable medical probability and relevant factual basis.
From the decision · page 2must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code,
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (en banc); Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 97]
To constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability and a relevant factual basis.
Medical opinions must be based on correct legal theory, relevant facts, and not on speculation or conjecture.
From the decision · page 3It is well established that all decisions by the WCAB must be supported by substantial
evidence and all decisions requiring medical evidence must be supported by substantial medical
evidence. Not all expert medical opinion constitutes substantial evidence. (Hegglin v. Workmen's
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93, 97]; Place v. Workmen's Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].) To constitute substantial
evidence, a medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability. (Escobedo v.
Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (en banc); McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.,
supra, 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416-417; Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th
1692, 1700-1702, 1705 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) "A medical report predicated upon an incorrect
legal theory and devoid of relevant factual basis, as well as a medical opinion extended beyond
the range of the physician's expertise, cannot rise to a higher level than its own inadequate
premises." (Zemke v.
Lab. Code, §3208.1; Hegglin, supra, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 97.
A medical evaluator must have a complete medical history including a history of applicant's job duties to opine on industrial causation.
Medical evaluator must know applicant's job duties to support a finding of injury caused by repetitive activities.
From the decision · page 3When opining on industrial causation, a medical evaluator must have a complete medical
history including a history of applicant's job duties. A medical evaluator must know what applicant
did at work to have a relevant factual basis to support a finding on whether an injury was caused
by "repetitive mentally or physically traumatic activities extending over a period of time." (Lab.
Code, § 3208.1; Hegglin, supra, 36 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 97.)
Lab. Code, §§ 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]
The Appeals Board has discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence or to provide due process.
The Board may return a matter for further development of the medical record when necessary.
From the decision · page 3The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical
record is not substantial evidence or when appropriate to provide due process or fully adjudicate
the issues. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56