What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on March 12, 2026, which found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and bilateral knees with 29% permanent disability.
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 satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the combined values chart method for the bilateral knees, supported by Dr. Stoller's detailed impairment ratings and ADL limitations.
From the decision · page 8Based upon the totality of the evidence, we believe that applicant satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees.
Dr. Stoller's reports were found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine, including detailed examination, history, and explanation of causation.
From the decision · page 6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Stoller's reports provided substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This evidence supported the applicant's claim and was relied upon by the WCJ to find injury causation.
From the decision · page 6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)
Applicant satisfied the Vigil requirements for rebuttal of the combined values chart method for bilateral knees impairment rating.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the applicant's permanent disability rating and rebuttal of the defense's challenge.
From the decision · page 8Based upon the totality of the evidence, we believe that applicant satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees.
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.
Found injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and bilateral knees with specific impairment ratings and ADL limitations supporting causation and impairment.
Dr. Stoller's reports were found to be substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and bilateral knees.
From the decision · page 6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)
Supported rebuttal of combined values chart method for bilateral knees with detailed impairment ratings and ADL limitations.
Dr. Stoller's opinion supported the applicant's rebuttal of the combined values chart method for bilateral knees impairment rating.
From the decision · page 8Based upon the totality of the evidence, we believe that applicant satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; Lab. Code, 3600; Lab. Code, 3202.5
Burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative; preponderance of evidence standard for causation.
Applicant must show employment was a contributing cause of injury by preponderance of evidence.
From the decision · page 5II. Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that the reporting of Dr. Stoller, which was relied upon by the WCJ in the making of her decision, does not constitute substantial medical evidence on the issue of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. It is well established that the burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) As such, when an employee claims injury AOE/COE, it is the employee, or the lien claimant who steps in the shoes of the employee, who carries the burden of proof in establishing industrial causation and they must show that the employment was a contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297- 298, 302; § 5705; 3600.) Pursuant to section 3202.5, the evidentiary burden of proof is to be met by a preponderance of the evidence. However, "[t]hat burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159
Substantial medical evidence requires reasonable, credible, and solid value evidence supporting causation.
Medical opinion must be based on accurate facts and reasoning to be substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 5(1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) Further, substantial medical evidence is used to establish industrial causation. "The term `substantial evidence' means 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. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) Pursuant to E.L. Yeager v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687], "[a] medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane,
Lab. Code, 4660.1; Lab. Code, 4660; Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808; Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213; Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence; combined values chart (CVC) is rebuttable.
Applicant may rebut CVC by showing ADLs impacted and non-overlapping or amplifying effects.
From the decision · page 6III. Defendant further contends that applicant failed to satisfy the requirements outlined under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees. (Petition, p. 4.) Pursuant to section 4660.1, the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274-1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are "generally" combined using the CVC, which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1- 10.)Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee's whole person impairment so long as the physician's opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony about pain and limitations in sitting, standing, walking, and lifting.
From the decision · page 6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)
Medical records and detailed examination by Dr. Stoller supporting causation and impairment.
From the decision · page 6Based upon our review of Dr. Stoller's reports, including the medical legal report dated December 12, 2024, Dr. Stoller reviewed medical records, took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. As such, we find that Dr. Stoller's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine. As explained by Dr. Stoller, applicant sustained a 6% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE category II due to loss of range of motion and pain as well as the injury's effects on applicant's activities and daily living (ADLs) including issues with standing and sitting. (Joint Exhibit 104 p. 27.) Applicant noted that he can tolerate sitting for sixty (60) minutes, standing and walking for two (2) hours, and lifting up to thirty (30) pounds. (Id. at p. 2.) Applicant also noted significant pain when walking up and down stairs and driving more than two hours. (Ibid.) We note that in his report dated August 1, 2025, Dr. Stoller confirmed that causation was due to the cumulative injury ending on October 25, 2018. (Joint Exhibit 105.)
Applicant's ADL limitations specific to bilateral knees including sitting, standing, walking, and pain with stairs and driving.
From the decision · page 8Based upon the totality of the evidence, we believe that applicant satisfied the requirements under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees.
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.