Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604,621 (Appeals Board en banc)
A medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and must set forth reasoning in support of conclusions to constitute substantial medical evidence.
The WCAB applied this standard to find Dr. Taylor's and Dr. McCormack's medical opinions substantial evidence supporting the temporary disability period.
From the decision · page 4Applicant bears the burden of establishing injury and a right to benefits.
The medical report upon which the Court relies must also be substantial medical
evidence. 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).)
Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d. 372, 378
The WCAB may choose the most appropriate and convincing evidence among conflicting medical evidence.
The WCAB relied on this authority to credit Dr. Taylor's and Dr. McCormack's opinions as substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 4It has been held that the opinion of a single medical expert may constitute
substantial medical evidence and it is well-settled authority that the WCAB may
choose the most appropriate and convincing evidence among conflicting
medical evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d. 372,
378.)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal is granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.
The WCAB applied this standard to deny the petition for removal.
From the decision · page 1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155];
Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70
Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that
substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate
that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner
ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) For the reasons stated in the WCJ's report,
we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied
and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a
final decision adverse to petitioner.
Labor Code sec. 5701, 5906; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc)
The Court has discretionary authority to develop the record when medical evidence is insufficient or to provide due process.
The WCJ exercised this authority to develop the record for the period after December 3, 2018 due to conflicting evidence about return to work.
From the decision · page 6The Court 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 sec. 5701, 5906; Tyler v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases
924].) In the en banc decision of McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc), the
board stated that "where the medical record requires further development either
after trial or submission of the case for decision, the medical record should first
be supplemented by physicians who have already reported in the case." (Id., at
pp. 139, 142.)