What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant seeking review of WCJ's July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order
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 WCJ found the opinion of Dr. Emampour more persuasive and logical than Dr. Carlblom's, supporting a 59% permanent disability rating after apportionment. The Appeals Board agreed, finding Dr. Emampour's opinion substantial evidence and denying the defendant's petition to reduce the rating or admit a supplemental report.
From the decision · page 5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Emampour's opinion was found more persuasive and logical than Dr. Carlblom's, supporting a 59% permanent disability rating after apportionment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This opinion was relied upon by the WCJ and Appeals Board to deny the defendant's petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.
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.
Found injury arising out of and in the course of employment to bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, with permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. Found no cumulative trauma injury.
Opinion found more persuasive and logical than Dr. Carlblom's by WCJ and Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.
Found cumulative trauma injury but rationale was not well-reasoned or clearly explained, and opinion was difficult to follow. Permanent disability rating assessed at 43%.
Opinion was found less persuasive and logical than Dr. Emampour's by WCJ and Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.
Provided clear rationale for finding only specific injury point, no cumulative industrial injury. Applied apportionment reducing permanent disability to 59%.
Opinion found substantial evidence and relied upon by WCJ and Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 5INTRODUCTION By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on August 22, 20251, defendant seeks reconsideration of my July 31, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed1 on September 30, 2016 (ADJ19126786) as an office assistant/secretary (Occupational Group 211) at San Jose, California, by Mobile Home Communities of America, Incorporated, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the bilateral shoulders, bilateral knees, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine, but did not sustain injury to the bilateral ankles, causing permanent disability of 59% after apportionment. I also found that applicant did not sustain a cumulative trauma to the same body partes during the cumulative trauma period ending on September 30, 3016 in ADJ19126787. In reaching my decision, I relied on the report of one of the Qualified Medical Examiners in this case, Dr. Rabeah Emanour, whose opinion I found mor persuasive and logical than the other QME in these cases. Dr. Eric Carlblom.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372
A single physician's relevant and considered opinion may constitute substantial evidence even if inconsistent with other medical opinions.
The Appeals Board relied on Dr. Emampour's opinion as substantial evidence despite conflicting opinions from Dr. Carlblom.
From the decision · page 2II. We observe, moreover, it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)
Labor Code section 5909 (amended)
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within the 60-day period from transmission on November 19, 2025.
From the decision · page 1I. Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility of Dr. Emampour's comprehensive history and review of medical records, including Dr. Carlblom's reports
From the decision · page 8Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; see also Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620§ 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, Dr. Emampour reviewed over three years of medical records (including the reports of Dr. Carlblom) and took a comprehensive history of the injury from applicant. His history is not inaccurate, and is not erroneous, beyond the physician's expertise, no longer germane, or based on an inadequate history, surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess.
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.