ADJ1405392 · May 16, 2025

The WCJ and Appeals Board found that Dr. Gonzalez's consultative medical reports were properly admitted and constituted substantial medical evidence based on adequate examination, history, and reasonable medical probability.

From the decision · page 8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

The WCJ and Appeals Board agreed that the applicant's psychiatric injury was compensable as it resulted from a violent act, allowing an increased impairment rating under Labor Code section 4660.1(c).

The Appeals Board panel found that the petition for reconsideration was timely filed and that the WCJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, thus denying the petition.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Answer, and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below and in the WCJ's Report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

Dr. Gonzalez's consultative medical reports were authorized by the primary treating physician and were not retained solely to rebut a QME opinion.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the admissibility and substantial evidence status of his reports, leading to denial of defendant's petition.

From the decision · page 8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

Applicant was crushed by a 600 to 800-pound LED screen, constituting a violent act under Labor Code section 4660.1(c).

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supported compensability of psychiatric injury and increased impairment rating.

Provided consultative medical reports supporting permanent disability rating, combining neurological and psychiatric impairments additively consistent with Vigil standard.

Dr. Gonzalez was authorized by utilization review and was not retained solely to rebut a QME opinion; his reports were admitted and found substantial evidence by the WCJ and Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 8On March 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration dated March 15, 2025, alleging that the undersigned WCJ erred in his Findings of Fact, Award & Order dated February 25, 2025. The Defendant contends that the undersigned WCJ erred in admitting the neuropsychological consultative reports of Fernando Gonzalez, Ph.D., dated June 1, 2023 and October 16, 2024. In addition, the Defendant contends that Dr. Gonzalez's reporting failed to constitute substantial medical evidence, including, but not limited to, his alleged lack of competence, the substance of his opinions, and his adding versus using the combined values chart Table 13-8 impairment rating in the AMA Guides and global assessment of function score to achieve permanent total disability. Finally, the Defendant contends that Labor Code § 4660.1(c) bars any psychiatric permanent disability for the Applicant's injury.

Primary treating physician who authorized Dr. Gonzalez's consultative reports and relied on them for impairment rating, work restrictions, causation, and future medical care.

Dr. Schweller authorized Dr. Gonzalez's reports and relied on them in his medical conclusions.

From the decision · page 3inapplicable, because Dr. Gonzalez was not retained to rebut a QME's opinion. (Report, at p. 3.) Rather, Dr. Gonzalez was retained to provide a treatment consultation, at the request of applicant's primary treating physician, Thomas A. Schweller, M.D. (4/26/23 Schweller Report, at p. 2.) Dr. Schweller then relied upon Dr. Gonzalez's reporting, in part, to reach his conclusions regarding the AMA impairment rating, work restrictions, causation/apportionment and future medical care.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.

The Board found the petition timely and denied it on the merits.

From the decision · page 1I. Former Labor Code section 59091 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.

Labor Code sections 4060, 4064, 4605, 4061, 5703

Medical reports by attending or consulting physicians are admissible unless specifically excluded; substantial evidence requires reasonable medical probability, adequate examination, and proper reasoning.

The Board admitted Dr. Gonzalez's reports and found them substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 2II. In Valdez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., the California Supreme Court analyzed the admissibility of medical reports in workers' compensation proceedings and opined in pertinent part: [T]he comprehensive medical evaluation process set out in section 4060 et seq. for the purpose of resolving disputes over compensability does not limit the admissibility of medical reports.... Under section 4064, subdivision (d), "no party is prohibited from obtaining any medical evaluation or consultation at the party's own expense," and "[a]ll comprehensive medical evaluations obtained by any party shall be admissible in any proceeding before the appeals board..." except as provided in specified statutes. The Board is, in general, broadly authorized to consider "[r]eports of attending or examining physicians." (§ 5703, subd. (a).)

Labor Code section 4660.1(c)

Increased impairment rating for psychiatric disorder allowed if injury resulted from a violent act under Labor Code section 4660.1(c).

The Board agreed the applicant's injury from being crushed by a heavy LED screen constituted a violent act allowing increased rating.

Dr. Gonzalez's medical opinions were based on adequate medical history, examination, and reasonable medical probability, not speculation or guesswork.

From the decision · page 10In this case, notwithstanding the Defendant's various complaints regarding Dr. Gonzalez and assertion that he is not competent to opine on the Applicant's permanent disability, Dr. Gonzalez did not speculate or guess in providing his medical opinions nor were they outside of his field of expertise. He took an adequate medical history and conducted an adequate medical examination. Since his opinions relied on germane facts and reasonable medical probability, they are substantial medical evidence. As such, in matters that require scientific medical knowledge, a WCJ may not reject them merely because an aggrieved party is dissatisfied with them.

Applicant was crushed by a 600 to 800-pound LED screen, constituting a violent act under Labor Code section 4660.1(c).