ADJ18722627 — California WCAB decision

ADJ18722627 · October 14, 2025

The WCAB panel granted the petition for reconsideration, amended the finding of injury to specify 'low back' instead of 'back', removed the start date for permanent disability payments, and otherwise affirmed the WCJ's decision.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Long Beach

What the panel ordered

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings, Awards, and Orders issued on July 14, 2025, which the WCAB panel granted in part and affirmed with amendments on October 14, 2025.

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.

Other disputed issueApplicant prevailedlow back

The WCAB amended the finding to specify the injury was to the low back rather than the entire back, based on medical reports.

From the decision · page 11When the parties stated their issues for trial, they included the back as one of the disputed body parts, without any limitation (Minutes p. 2 Issue 2). The Petition raises the issue that the findings in the medical reports are of injury to the low back or lumbar spine, which is accurate. It would therefore be appropriate to amend Finding of Fact 1 by changing the word "back" to "low back."

Other disputed issue

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant did not have medical knowledge that his cumulative trauma injury was work-related until early 2024 when he saw an advertisement.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 and supported the timeliness of the claim.

From the decision · page 6As such, the date of injury pursuant to section 5412, is no earlier than the date that applicant saw the advertisement on television, which applicant's unrebutted testimony indicated was the beginning of 2024. (MOH/SOE, 8:20-22.) The WCJ found applicant's testimony to be fully credible and we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.) Therefore, the claim is not barred by section 5405.

Applicant's credible testimony was consistent with medical histories and supported his lack of knowledge of the industrial nature of his injury before filing the claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Credibility determinations by the WCJ were given great weight and supported the claim not being barred by the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 9This WCJ found the applicant to be a credible witness during the trial, and that the level of sophistication shown in his testimony was consistent with his background. Review of his full deposition transcript (Ex. C) and the medical histories given by QME Dr. Jonathan Frank (Ex. Jt. 1 & Jt. 2) and treating doctor, Dr. Harold Iseke (Ex. A & B) showed that what he said on the stand was consistent with those sources. There were discrepancies, as one would reasonably expect from different accounts given at different times and responding to different questioners, but they were minor compared to the areas of consistency. If all of the accounts had been exactly the same, there would reasonably have been a question of whether he was speaking from a memorized script rather than from memory, but that was not a concern here. Regarding his account of learning about cumulative trauma injuries through an advertisement, which Defense Counsel says was given for the first time at trial, it does not appear that he was asked during his deposition for any details on what caused him to realize that he might have such a claim, so it is not surprising he did not mention it during the deposition. Similarly, there is nothing in the medical histories that indicates he was asked specifically about what caused him to think that he might have suffered cumulative trauma injury.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's credible testimony about his lack of knowledge of cumulative trauma injury until early 2024 and his consistent medical histories.

From the decision · page 9This WCJ found the applicant to be a credible witness during the trial, and that the level of sophistication shown in his testimony was consistent with his background. Review of his full deposition transcript (Ex. C) and the medical histories given by QME Dr. Jonathan Frank (Ex. Jt. 1 & Jt. 2) and treating doctor, Dr. Harold Iseke (Ex. A & B) showed that what he said on the stand was consistent with those sources. There were discrepancies, as one would reasonably expect from different accounts given at different times and responding to different questioners, but they were minor compared to the areas of consistency. If all of the accounts had been exactly the same, there would reasonably have been a question of whether he was speaking from a memorized script rather than from memory, but that was not a concern here. Regarding his account of learning about cumulative trauma injuries through an advertisement, which Defense Counsel says was given for the first time at trial, it does not appear that he was asked during his deposition for any details on what caused him to realize that he might have such a claim, so it is not surprising he did not mention it during the deposition. Similarly, there is nothing in the medical histories that indicates he was asked specifically about what caused him to think that he might have suffered cumulative trauma injury.

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Lack of medical advice or discussion about cumulative trauma injury before claim filing, supporting applicant's lack of knowledge.

From the decision · page 9The applicant received his back treatment, including surgery, and his knee treatment through Kaiser (Minutes p. 7 l. 8-20). The only records from Kaiser that was submitted at trial were Exhibits G, a single page related to an episode of sciatica in 2016, and H, a single page that seemed to consist of parts of two different reports, neither of them complete enough to be helpful. There was no evidence submitted at trial showing that anyone at Kaiser discussed whether or not the applicant's job duties at LADWP caused him injury over time with him and, per his testimony, he did not treat anywhere else for those conditions.

ADJ18722627 · October 14, 2025

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