ADJ16542754 — California WCAB decision

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.

Read the official decision →

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedcervical spine · right shoulder · low back

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.

PTPRelied upon · orthopedic

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.)

QMERejected · orthopedic

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.)

ADJ16542754 · January 23, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page