What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Award of October 24, 2025 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on October 24, 2025, which denied permanent disability for COVID-19 injury; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings.
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 Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient and not substantial to deny permanent disability; the matter was returned for further development and proceedings.
From the decision · page 7disability; 2. Need for further medical treatment; and 3. Attorney fees. (Amended Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), August 25, 2025 trial, p. 2.) The parties stipulated that during the period of January 1, 2023 through February 23, 2024, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the head and in the form of COVID-19.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Medical opinions by Drs. Grodan and Zardouz were conclusory and lacked substantial evidence to deny permanent disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Appeals Board found the medical evidence insufficient to support the WCJ's denial of permanent disability, leading to remand for further proceedings.
From the decision · page 11Here, Dr. Zardouz references applicant's complaints of brain fog, fatigue, worsening headaches, and a cough since he got COVID. (Exhibit 4, 7/26/2024 IME Report, p. 3.) Dr. Zardouz performed basic neurological testing and mentions the results of a brain MRI, but does not explain the reasoning by which he progresses from the results to his conclusions. (Exhibit 4, 7/26/2024 IME Report, pp. 3, 21 (p. 4 of record review).) Dr. Zardouz provided a cursory opinion that applicant's headaches are pre-existing in nature and thus are not a factor of permanent disability. (Exhibit 4, 7/26/2024 IME Report, p. 13.) With respect to permanent disability, Dr. Zardouz opined that the only factor of permanent disability is low back pain, but stating that he declined to rate it without the results of an MRI of the lumbar spine. (Id. at p. 14.) He offered no opinion as to brain fog, fatigue, or other possible sequalae of COVID-19. Dr. Zardouz's opinions are conclusory at best and are not substantial medical evidence.
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.
Opined headaches were pre-existing and not a factor of permanent disability; only low back pain was a factor but declined to rate without MRI results; opinions were conclusory and not substantial evidence.
Opinions were conclusory and lacked substantial medical evidence as they did not adequately explain reasoning or address brain fog and fatigue.
From the decision · page 11Here, Dr. Zardouz references applicant's complaints of brain fog, fatigue, worsening headaches, and a cough since he got COVID. (Exhibit 4, 7/26/2024 IME Report, p. 3.) Dr. Zardouz performed basic neurological testing and mentions the results of a brain MRI, but does not explain the reasoning by which he progresses from the results to his conclusions. (Exhibit 4, 7/26/2024 IME Report, pp. 3, 21 (p. 4 of record review).) Dr. Zardouz provided a cursory opinion that applicant's headaches are pre-existing in nature and thus are not a factor of permanent disability. (Exhibit 4, 7/26/2024 IME Report, p. 13.) With respect to permanent disability, Dr. Zardouz opined that the only factor of permanent disability is low back pain, but stating that he declined to rate it without the results of an MRI of the lumbar spine. (Id. at p. 14.) He offered no opinion as to brain fog, fatigue, or other possible sequalae of COVID-19. Dr. Zardouz's opinions are conclusory at best and are not substantial medical evidence.
Did not perform treadmill or METS testing despite fatigue complaints; did not discuss significance of normal EKG and METS; recommended neurocognitive and neuropsychological testing; opinions not substantial evidence.
Opinions lacked substantial evidence due to incomplete testing and failure to explain significance of test results.
From the decision · page 11Dr. Grodan did not perform a treadmill test or any other METS testing, despite applicant's complaints of fatigue. (Exhibit 1, 4/29/2024 IME Report, p. 9.) The results of a resting EKG conducted on April 29, 2024, a revealed normal sinus rhythm rate of 82 (Exhibit 1, at p. 6) and a METS value of 1.0. (Attached to Exhibit 1, at p. 23 of PDF.) However, Dr. Grodan did not discuss the significance of the results, if any. Dr. Grodan references a report by a Dr. Hirsch which includes the results of a pulmonary function study (PFT). According to Dr. Grodan, there "appeared to be a reduction in some of the parameters with bronchodilators instead of increased volumes." (Exhibit 3, 1/20/2025 IME Report, p. 4.) Dr. Hirsch's report is not in evidence and Dr. Grodan did not request a PFT in this case.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 4060, et seq.; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Insurance Company of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]
A medical evaluation is required where there is a dispute over limitations or permanent impairment; expert medical opinion must be utilized.
The WCJ must base decisions on substantial medical evidence and expert opinion when there is a dispute over permanent disability.
From the decision · page 9A medical evaluation is required where there is a dispute over limitations, if any, resulting from an injury, or the existence or extent of permanent impairment. (Lab. Code, § 4060, et seq.) When deciding a medical issue, the WCJ must utilize expert medical opinion. (See Insurance Company of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kemp) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913].) The number and nature of the injuries sustained are questions of fact for the WCJ. (Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 234 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 323].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony of ongoing post-COVID symptoms and functional limitations
From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the WCJ disregarded applicant's credible testimony of ongoing post-COVID symptoms and functional limitations; and that the opinions of the independent medical evaluators (IMEs) were not substantial evidence.
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.