ADJ18246803 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

June 12, 2026 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.p. 9

Petition for Reconsideration granted by the WCAB, rescinding the June 12, 2026 Findings and Order and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

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/COERemandedcirculatory system · brain · left leg · left arm

The WCAB found that the WCJ's findings were based on an incorrect date of the stressful encounter and that the medical opinions lacked substantial evidence due to this error. The case was remanded for further development of the record with correct dates to obtain substantial medical opinions on causation.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the June 12, 2026 Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury with defendant on an industrial basis. Applicant claimed that during the period from June 4, 2021 through September 23, 2021 she sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her circulatory system, including a stroke, causing impaired sleep and injury to her brain, left leg, and left arm arising out of and occurring in the course of employment as a security guard. Applicant contends that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact and that the findings of fact do not support the order that applicant take nothing in this matter.

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.

PTPRecord developed further

Asserted that the temporal proximity of the stroke to the stressful encounter with supervisor means the two are causally connected, but used an incorrect date. Needs to explain mechanism of injury with correct dates.

Used incorrect date for stressful encounter, so opinion lacks substantial evidence until corrected.

From the decision · page 7Zlotolow are aware of the correct date of applicant’s stressful encounter with her supervisor, they must apply that information to a detailed description of the mechanism of injury by explaining how and why the incident—and any other alleged causes of injury—did or did not contribute to the occurrence of applicant’s stroke on September 23, 2021. Dr. Zlotolow has asserted that the temporal proximity of the stroke to applicant’s stressful encounter with her supervisor means that the two are causally connected, but he used an incorrect date. Once he has the correct sequence of events, he can explain how or why it is medically probable that such an incident would cause physiological changes contributing to the occurrence of applicant’s stroke. Mere assertion of the causal relationship is insufficient without an explanation of the mechanism of injury. Similarly, Dr.

QMERecord developed further

Determined it is not medically probable that alleged stress from employment caused the stroke, but did not have correct date or full nature of incident. Opinion lacks substantial evidence until corrected.

Did not correctly identify date and nature of stressful incident; relied on secondhand knowledge from Dr. Zlotolow's report.

From the decision · page 4However, this would actually have been after the stroke, which is well-documented to have occurred in the early morning hours of 9/23/2021. PTP Zlotolow further erroneously asserts that QME Engelberg did not mention any of the stress that the Applicant was under on the night of her stroke, specifically the roll call meeting. [Applicant's Exhibit 1 at p.4] However, QME Engelberg specifically described the incident on page 89 of his report dated 04/18/2025 [Joint Exhibit 3] and further mentioned "an altercation with her supervisor" as the questionable cause for the stroke [Joint Exhibit 3 at p. 94 3]. QME Engelberg has thoroughly reviewed the Applicant's medical history, described the pre-existing factors that were the probable cause for the stroke, and determined that it is not medically probable that alleged stress from employment with Defendant caused the Applicant's stroke.

ADJ18246803 · August 28, 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