What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Amended Findings of Fact and Orders issued on August 4, 2025, which was denied by the WCAB panel decision on November 14, 2025.
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 Board found credible and unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting that the applicant sustained a high velocity eye injury as defined by the statute, entitling him to extended temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 6Applicant sustained injury to his left eye when one or more welding sparks entered his left eye on July 19, 2022. According to applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony (12/26/2024 MOH; pages 3-4):
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained injury to the left eye on July 19, 2022, while employed as a welder specialist, with credible testimony describing the injury mechanism and protective gear worn.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the industrial causation and supported the finding of a high velocity eye injury under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F).
From the decision · page 6Applicant sustained injury to his left eye when one or more welding sparks entered his left eye on July 19, 2022. According to applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony (12/26/2024 MOH; pages 3-4):
Medical evidence including AME Dr. Sami's report and Dr. Sarni's deposition confirmed the injury involved a metallic foreign body, fungal corneal ulcer, and resultant corneal scarring causing vision loss, causally related to the industrial injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical evidence substantiated the nature and extent of the injury and supported the application of the high velocity eye injury statute.
From the decision · page 7Applicant was evaluated by AME Ophthalmologist Dr. Sami pursuant to his 12/6/2024 report indicating at page 2:
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.
Applicant suffered a flash burn and metallic foreign body injury to the left cornea on 7/19/2022, complicated by fungal corneal ulcer and residual corneal scar causing vision loss and light sensitivity.
The AME report was critical in establishing the nature and extent of the injury and its industrial causation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F).
From the decision · page 7Applicant was evaluated by AME Ophthalmologist Dr. Sami pursuant to his 12/6/2024 report indicating at page 2:
Confirmed metallic corneal foreign body injury, removal procedure, subsequent fungal infection causing corneal scarring and vision impairment, causally related to the industrial injury.
The deposition testimony of Dr. Sarni confirmed the causal link between the industrial injury and the corneal scarring, supporting the finding of a high velocity eye injury.
From the decision · page 12Among the exhibits received in evidence on 5/13/2025 was the deposition of AME Dr. David Sarni dated 4/10/2025 ( exhibit x 1 ). Dr. Sarni testified as to whether the corneal scarring in applicant's left eye was caused by the industrial injury at pages 7 and 8:
Reported loss of vision in the left eye with visually significant corneal scar and cataract, consistent with injury mechanism described by applicant.
His report supported the injury mechanism and extent of vision loss, corroborating applicant's testimony.
From the decision · page 10The records of Loma Linda University Health (Exhibit 5) contain the 4/2/2023 report of Michael Sheety, D.O. which includes the following history:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F)
Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(F) regarding high velocity eye injuries and extended temporary disability benefits.
Applied to determine eligibility for extended temporary disability benefits based on the nature of the eye injury.
From the decision · page 7However, defendant's argument fails to acknowledge and appreciate the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature in enacting Labor Code § 4656(c)(3)(F) which states:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony about the injury mechanism and protective gear worn.
From the decision · page 6Applicant sustained injury to his left eye when one or more welding sparks entered his left eye on July 19, 2022. According to applicant's credible and unrebutted testimony (12/26/2024 MOH; pages 3-4):
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.