ADJ17943105 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award dated October 23, 2025, which found injury AOE/COE to the left ankle only, 24% PD, and no apportionment; reconsideration was denied.

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/COEDefendant prevailedneck · back · chest · shoulders · navel · testicle

No substantial medical evidence supports industrial injury to body parts other than the left ankle; AME Dr. Marino found injury only to the left ankle.

From the decision · page 6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

AME Dr. Marino found injury only to the left ankle and no other body parts.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Tribunal relied on AME's opinion as substantial evidence for limiting industrial injury to left ankle.

From the decision · page 6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.

Applicant's complaints of pain to other body parts were not supported by medical evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of substantial medical evidence precluded finding of industrial injury to other body parts.

From the decision · page 6injuries, applicant was not forthcoming. On June 17, 2023, applicant sought emergency treatment and requested a spine MRI, however on physical examination applicant's back was normal. Eventually, applicant self-procured lumbar spine x-rays and an MRI which were reviewed by his primary treating physician but no further action was indicated by him. Applicant also complained of left side testicle pain, however, Dr. Alchemy referred him to his primary care physician for it and per applicant he treated for it non-industrially including surgical intervention. There is simply no evidence in the record of industrial navel pain/left testicle injury. Significantly, AME, Dr. Marino only found injury to applicant's left ankle, and we are bound to make our findings based on the medical evidence. Hence, applicant did not prove any industrial injury to his neck, back, chest, shoulders nor navel pain/left testicle.

Permanent disability rating for left ankle was based on AME's impairment rating and application of AMA Guides and PDRS.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Tribunal found no basis to award greater compensation than the statutory rating.

From the decision · page 6Here, Dr. Marino provided his medical opinion as to the level of applicant's impairment to his left ankle based on the AMA Guides. Then, pursuant to section 4660.1, the WCJ used the PDRS to convert the percentage of impairment determined by the medical evaluator to a dollar amount. Thus, even though applicant appears to believe that he is owed a greater amount of compensation, the WCJ is required to apply section 4660.1 in every case to determine the compensation owed and may not take individual factors into account.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408; Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692

The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence.

Applied to determine whether applicant proved industrial injury to body parts other than left ankle.

From the decision · page 5The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3600(a), 3202.5.) The Supreme Court of California has long held that an employee need only show that the "proof of industrial causation is reasonably probable, although not certain or `convincing.'" (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) "That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].) The parties presumably choose an AME because of the AME's expertise and neutrality. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) We will follow the opinions of the AME unless good cause exists to find their opinion unpersuasive. (Ibid.)

Lab. Code, § 4660.1

Permanent disability percentage must be determined based on AMA Guides and PDRS as required by section 4660.1.

Applied to determine permanent disability rating for left ankle.

From the decision · page 6Section 4660.1 sets forth the framework for determining the appropriate percentage of permanent disability. Specifically, subdivision (b) requires that whole person impairment be determined based on the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). Subdivision (d) provides for a Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities (PDRS).

ADJ17943105 · January 12, 2026

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