ADJ14962115 · October 12, 2026

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting the injury arising out of and in the course of employment and upheld the grant of the Petition for Contribution against United Wisconsin Insurance Company for 72% of costs and benefits paid by State National.

From the decision · page 1Defendant, United Wisconsin Insurance Company (United), seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on June 29, 2026, wherein the workers’ compensation arbitrator (WCA) found, in relevant part, that applicant claimed a cumulative injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment (AOE/COE) during the period from June 1, 2017 through May 4, 2021 to the chest, respiratory system, left lung 1, and nervous system while employed by Rethink Human Capital MGMT/LCF/Shiftpixy as a food service worker; applicant elected against State National Insurance Company (State National) for said injury; applicant and State National settled the claim via a Compromise and Release Agreement (C&R) with an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issuing on June 21, 2023; State National filed a Petition for Contribution against United 2, which was granted; and United is responsible for contribution to State National for seventy-two percent (72%) of applicable costs and benefits paid by State National in this claim. The WCA then awarded contribution by United to State National

Reports of Dr. Zlotolow provided substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE during the period from June 1, 2017 through May 4, 2021.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This evidence supported the grant of the Petition for Contribution against United Wisconsin Insurance Company.

From the decision · page 91-2.) In his report dated April 8, 2022, he found no industrial causation for applicant’s adenocarcinoma of the tongue but noted that he would reconsider his opinions upon provision and review of the MSDS. (Exhibit Z, pp. 10-11.)_Thereafter, Dr. Zlotolow was provided 873 pages of medical records, including the MSDS, and prepared a supplemental report dated August 1, 2022. In this subsequent report, he indicated that “the MSDSs do show the patient was exposed to industrial solvents” and said solvents “have been shown to play a substantial factor in the development of lung cancer.” (State National’s Exhibit 3, p. 7.) Further, taking into consideration Dr. Hendel’s discussion of applicant’s exposure to cooking and frying oil which Dr. Hendel indicated was the cause of applicant’s cancer, he agreed that applicant’s “adenocarcinoma of the lung is 100% work related.” (Ibid.) He continued to stand by these findings during a deposition held on March 17, 2023. Based upon our review of Dr. Zlotolow’s reports, he completed a full assessment of applicant, reviewed extensive medical records, took a detailed history, and provided evidence and reasoning in support of his conclusions. As such, we conclude that the reports of Dr. Zlotolow constitute substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE during the period from June 1, 2017

Found no industrial causation for adenocarcinoma of the tongue initially but later agreed that adenocarcinoma of the lung is 100% work related based on MSDS and exposure to industrial solvents and cooking fumes.

Provided substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE during the period from June 1, 2017 through May 4, 2021.

From the decision · page 91-2.) In his report dated April 8, 2022, he found no industrial causation for applicant’s adenocarcinoma of the tongue but noted that he would reconsider his opinions upon provision and review of the MSDS. (Exhibit Z, pp. 10-11.)_Thereafter, Dr. Zlotolow was provided 873 pages of medical records, including the MSDS, and prepared a supplemental report dated August 1, 2022. In this subsequent report, he indicated that “the MSDSs do show the patient was exposed to industrial solvents” and said solvents “have been shown to play a substantial factor in the development of lung cancer.” (State National’s Exhibit 3, p. 7.) Further, taking into consideration Dr. Hendel’s discussion of applicant’s exposure to cooking and frying oil which Dr. Hendel indicated was the cause of applicant’s cancer, he agreed that applicant’s “adenocarcinoma of the lung is 100% work related.” (Ibid.) He continued to stand by these findings during a deposition held on March 17, 2023. Based upon our review of Dr. Zlotolow’s reports, he completed a full assessment of applicant, reviewed extensive medical records, took a detailed history, and provided evidence and reasoning in support of his conclusions. As such, we conclude that the reports of Dr. Zlotolow constitute substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE during the period from June 1, 2017

Report dated April 27, 2022 was found inadmissible due to procedural issues with submission of reports from non-treating physicians outside the medical-legal process.

Report was inadmissible under Labor Code sections 4060 and 4062.2 and DWC Rule 35(e).

From the decision · page 129. The arbitrator finds that the medical report of Eli Hendel, M.D. dated April 27, 2022 is inadmissible.

Labor Code sections 4060, 4061, 4062.2

Medical evaluations to determine compensability in represented cases must be obtained only by the procedure provided in Labor Code section 4062.2.

Reports of non-treating physicians outside the medical-legal process are inadmissible.

From the decision · page 615.) We remind the parties that section 4060 applies to “disputes over the compensability of any injury.” Subdivision (c) of section 4060, provides that “[i]f a medical evaluation is required to determine compensability at any time after the filing of the claim form, and the employee is represented by an attorney, a medical evaluation to determine compensability shall be obtained only by the procedure provided in Section 4062.2.” Subdivision (a) of section 4062.2 provides that “[w]henever a comprehensive medical evaluation is required to resolve any dispute arising out of an injury or a claimed injury occurring on or after January 1, 2005, and the employee is represented by an attorney, the evaluation shall be obtained only as provided in this section.” Section

Reports of Dr. Zlotolow constituted substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE during the period from June 1, 2017 through May 4, 2021.

From the decision · page 91-2.) In his report dated April 8, 2022, he found no industrial causation for applicant’s adenocarcinoma of the tongue but noted that he would reconsider his opinions upon provision and review of the MSDS. (Exhibit Z, pp. 10-11.)_Thereafter, Dr. Zlotolow was provided 873 pages of medical records, including the MSDS, and prepared a supplemental report dated August 1, 2022. In this subsequent report, he indicated that “the MSDSs do show the patient was exposed to industrial solvents” and said solvents “have been shown to play a substantial factor in the development of lung cancer.” (State National’s Exhibit 3, p. 7.) Further, taking into consideration Dr. Hendel’s discussion of applicant’s exposure to cooking and frying oil which Dr. Hendel indicated was the cause of applicant’s cancer, he agreed that applicant’s “adenocarcinoma of the lung is 100% work related.” (Ibid.) He continued to stand by these findings during a deposition held on March 17, 2023. Based upon our review of Dr. Zlotolow’s reports, he completed a full assessment of applicant, reviewed extensive medical records, took a detailed history, and provided evidence and reasoning in support of his conclusions. As such, we conclude that the reports of Dr. Zlotolow constitute substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE during the period from June 1, 2017