What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; WCJ's decision affirmed.
Petition for reconsideration filed by Defendant Southern California Gas Company, challenging the WCJ's Findings of Fact & Award dated September 19, 2025, was timely filed and acted upon within statutory deadlines.
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.
Substantial evidence / credibilityApplicant prevailedlumbar spine · both knees · left ankle
The WCJ's reliance on Dr. Ahmed's medical opinion was supported by substantial evidence, including adequate examination, history, and reasoning, and was not speculative or erroneous, so the medical evidence was upheld.
From the decision · page 2For the reasons stated in the Report and Opinion on Decision, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of primary treating physician Khalid Ahmed, M.D., is substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]; Place v. Workmen's Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; 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, 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].) We observe, moreover, it is well- established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial