What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied by WCAB panel on January 23, 2024.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant after WCJ Findings and Award issued November 3, 2023, denying reconsideration and affirming injury findings.
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.
The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and consistent with Dr. Morley's opinions, which were detailed and based on medical evidence, and rejected Dr. McGillicuddy's contrary opinion as less persuasive.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 3, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her cervical spine, right shoulder, and low back; and that the reporting from treating physician Brendan P. Morely, M.D., is more persuasive than the reporting from orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Jeffrey O. McGillicuddy, M.D. The WCJ also found that, "The record is not fully developed on the issue of the applicant's periods of partial temporally disability or total temporary disability" and ordered the parties "to develop the record with respect to the applicant's periods of temporary disability..." (F&A, pp. 1 § 2.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's credible testimony consistent with Dr. Morley's medical opinions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to cervical spine, right shoulder, and low back.
From the decision · page 4In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that he found "... applicant's testimony to be credible and consistent with the conclusions of Dr. Morley and inconsistent with the conclusions of Dr. McGillicuddy. Award was made on the basis of Dr. Morley's [sic] reporting." (F&A, p. 3, Opinion on Decision.) Again, we agree with the WCJ that applicant's testimony was consistent with Dr. Morley's opinions. When viewed together, applicant's testimony and Dr. Dr. Morley's opinions are substantial evidence and in turn, are an appropriate basis for the WCJ's Finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical spine, right shoulder, and low back.
Dr. Morley's detailed medical reports and MRI findings supporting injury claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provided substantial evidence for injury causation and contradicted the QME's contrary opinion.
From the decision · page 4Here, Dr. Morely examined applicant several times, beginning on September 7, 2022. (Def. Exh. A, pp. 22 § 27, record review; see also App. Exhs. 2 § 5.) In addition to examining applicant, Dr. Morley reviewed various diagnostics, including cervical and right shoulder MRIs. (See e.g. App. Exh. 5, p. 3.) By his deposition testimony and his June 26, 2023 report, Dr. Morley provided a detailed explanation as to the factual basis and his reasoning for his conclusion that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her neck and right shoulder. The doctor's opinions do not appear to be based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. supra.) Thus, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Morley's reports constitute substantial evidence.
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.
Provided detailed explanation and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to neck and right shoulder, including MRI findings and mechanism of injury consistent with applicant's symptoms.
The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Morley's opinions more persuasive and substantial evidence than the QME's contrary opinion.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 3, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her cervical spine, right shoulder, and low back; and that the reporting from treating physician Brendan P. Morely, M.D., is more persuasive than the reporting from orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Jeffrey O. McGillicuddy, M.D. The WCJ also found that, "The record is not fully developed on the issue of the applicant's periods of partial temporally disability or total temporary disability" and ordered the parties "to develop the record with respect to the applicant's periods of temporary disability..." (F&A, pp. 1 § 2.)
Concluded that applicant's description of injury mechanism was inconsistent with symptomatology and findings, disputing injury to right shoulder and neck.
The WCJ found Dr. McGillicuddy's opinion less persuasive and inconsistent with applicant's credible testimony and Dr. Morley's reports.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 3, 2023, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her cervical spine, right shoulder, and low back; and that the reporting from treating physician Brendan P. Morely, M.D., is more persuasive than the reporting from orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Jeffrey O. McGillicuddy, M.D. The WCJ also found that, "The record is not fully developed on the issue of the applicant's periods of partial temporally disability or total temporary disability" and ordered the parties "to develop the record with respect to the applicant's periods of temporary disability..." (F&A, pp. 1 § 2.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Place v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378
The Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess.
The WCJ and WCAB relied on Dr. Morley's detailed medical opinion as substantial evidence despite conflicting opinions.
From the decision · page 4App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Market Basket v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 137 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible and consistent testimony supporting injury claim.
From the decision · page 4In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ stated that he found "... applicant's testimony to be credible and consistent with the conclusions of Dr. Morley and inconsistent with the conclusions of Dr. McGillicuddy. Award was made on the basis of Dr. Morley's [sic] reporting." (F&A, p. 3, Opinion on Decision.) Again, we agree with the WCJ that applicant's testimony was consistent with Dr. Morley's opinions. When viewed together, applicant's testimony and Dr. Dr. Morley's opinions are substantial evidence and in turn, are an appropriate basis for the WCJ's Finding that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her cervical spine, right shoulder, and low back.
Medical reports from Dr. Morely supporting injury to neck and right shoulder.
From the decision · page 4Here, Dr. Morely examined applicant several times, beginning on September 7, 2022. (Def. Exh. A, pp. 22 § 27, record review; see also App. Exhs. 2 § 5.) In addition to examining applicant, Dr. Morley reviewed various diagnostics, including cervical and right shoulder MRIs. (See e.g. App. Exh. 5, p. 3.) By his deposition testimony and his June 26, 2023 report, Dr. Morley provided a detailed explanation as to the factual basis and his reasoning for his conclusion that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to her neck and right shoulder. The doctor's opinions do not appear to be based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. supra.) Thus, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Morley's reports constitute substantial evidence.
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.