What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; Findings and Award of November 14, 2024 affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the November 14, 2024 Findings and Award; the WCJ had found applicant sustained an industrial injury to her heart resulting in 5% 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.
Dr. Levy's reports were found to be substantial medical evidence supporting that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her heart, including aggravation of mitral valve prolapse and ventricular ectopy, with ongoing need for medical care. No contradictory medical evidence was found.
From the decision · page 5Based upon our review of Dr. Levy's reports, including his October 23, 2023 report, Dr. Levy took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, reviewed all medical records provided, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Dr. Levy also completed necessary testing including a treadmill test, exercise oximetry, and echocardiogram. (Joint Exhibit CC.) As such, we find that Dr. Levy's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the heart and need for an award of future medical treatment to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Levy took an accurate and adequate history, thoroughly examined the applicant, reviewed all medical records, and explained how the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the substantial medical evidence basis for finding injury AOE/COE and need for future medical treatment.
From the decision · page 5Based upon our review of Dr. Levy's reports, including his October 23, 2023 report, Dr. Levy took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, reviewed all medical records provided, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Dr. Levy also completed necessary testing including a treadmill test, exercise oximetry, and echocardiogram. (Joint Exhibit CC.) As such, we find that Dr. Levy's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the heart and need for an award of future medical treatment to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the injury.
Applicant experienced palpitations, chest pains, anxiety, racing heart, extreme fatigue, and decreased exercise tolerance after vaccination, with abnormal EKG and treatment with metoprolol; no prior history or contradictory evidence was found.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These symptoms and medical findings supported the finding of industrial injury and aggravation of pre-existing condition.
From the decision · page 5In the instant case, we agree with Dr. Levy and the WCJ that the vaccine aggravated applicant's ventricular ectopy and contributed to applicant's mitral valve prolapse. (Report, p. 2; Joint Exhibit GG, pp. 4-5.) Even if applicant had preexisting mitral valve prolapse, after receiving the vaccination, it is clear that applicant experienced an aggravation in her condition. As reported by Dr. Levy, post vaccine, applicant experienced palpitations, chest pains, anxiety, and racing heart. (Joint Exhibit AA, p. 7.) She also experienced extreme fatigue with decreased exercise
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 that applicant's symptoms were caused by employer's demand for premature COVID vaccine, resulting in 5% whole person impairment due to mitral valve prolapse with 50% apportionment for pre-existing condition; removed impairment for ectopy as symptoms resolved; supported ongoing medical treatment need.
Dr. Levy took accurate history, examined applicant, reviewed records, and explained causation and impairment with reasoning, constituting substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 2The parties retained Dr. Richard Levy as the panel QME. Dr. Levy evaluated the applicant on March 18, 2022, April 7, 2023 and September 8, 2023. He issued a total of seven reports dated March 18, 2022, June 1, 2022 (original), June 1, 2022 (revised), July 15, 2022, April 7, 2023, September 8, 2023, and October 23, 2023. Dr. Levy was also deposed on March 20, 2024.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
E.L. Yeager v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922
An expert medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, be based on an accurate history and examination, and must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached.
The Board found Dr. Levy's opinion met these criteria and constituted substantial medical evidence supporting injury causation and need for treatment.
From the decision · page 4II. Turning to the merits of the Petition, defendant argues that the reports of Dr. Levy do not support the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE causing mitral valve prolapse and ventricular ectopy (palpitations) with an ongoing need for future medical care as the reports do not constitute substantial medical evidence. It is well established that any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board, including decisions by WCJs, must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) To constitute substantial evidence, an expert medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, be based on an accurate history and examination, and must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L. Yeager v.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Levy took an accurate and adequate history, thoroughly examined the applicant, reviewed all medical records, and explained how the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints.
From the decision · page 5Based upon our review of Dr. Levy's reports, including his October 23, 2023 report, Dr. Levy took an accurate and adequate history of the injury, thoroughly examined the applicant, reviewed all medical records provided, and explained how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Dr. Levy also completed necessary testing including a treadmill test, exercise oximetry, and echocardiogram. (Joint Exhibit CC.) As such, we find that Dr. Levy's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE to the heart and need for an award of future medical treatment to cure or relieve applicant from the effects of the injury.
Applicant experienced palpitations, chest pains, anxiety, racing heart, extreme fatigue, and decreased exercise tolerance after vaccination, with abnormal EKG and treatment with metoprolol; no prior history or contradictory evidence was found.
From the decision · page 5In the instant case, we agree with Dr. Levy and the WCJ that the vaccine aggravated applicant's ventricular ectopy and contributed to applicant's mitral valve prolapse. (Report, p. 2; Joint Exhibit GG, pp. 4-5.) Even if applicant had preexisting mitral valve prolapse, after receiving the vaccination, it is clear that applicant experienced an aggravation in her condition. As reported by Dr. Levy, post vaccine, applicant experienced palpitations, chest pains, anxiety, and racing heart. (Joint Exhibit AA, p. 7.) She also experienced extreme fatigue with decreased exercise
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.