ADJ19428639 · August 3, 2026

The WCAB found that the WCJ's decision was not supported by substantial medical evidence because the PQME's opinion was based on an incomplete medical and employment history. The WCAB also found legal errors in the WCJ's application of the good faith personnel action defense and the Rolda analysis. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the F&O and remanded for further proceedings with a complete record and proper analysis.

From the decision · page 1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) in response to the Findings and Orders (F&O) dated May 19, 2026 in which the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed by defendant as a staff development officer during the cumulative period ending June 10, 2010, did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the nervous system, stress, or psyche. Applicant contends that the WCJ improperly applied lay opinion in lieu of expert medical opinion, improperly expanded the definition of personnel action, improperly found personnel actions were a substantial cause of injury, did not adequately address relevant evidence, and in the alternative argued that the record should be developed. Defendant filed an Answer. The WCJ’s Report and Recommendation (Report) recommends that reconsideration be denied. We have reviewed the allegations in the Petition and the Answer and the contents of the Report. After review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration, rescind the F&O, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PQME Dr. Chahal was not provided with treatment records, witness statements, testimony, or personnel files necessary for a complete medical and employment history.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of a complete history rendered Dr. Chahal's medical opinion not substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding on causation.

From the decision · page 8resource department. It is baffling that the performance improvement plans are not part of the record, and that Dr. Chahal has not been provided with the performance improvement plans nor applicant’s actual personnel file. Because Dr. Chahal has not been provided with these treatment records, statements, testimony, and employment records, it is inescapably obvious that the doctor’s opinions are not premised on a complete history. Dr. Chahal’s opinions are therefore not substantial. Because Dr. Chahal’s opinions, through no apparent fault of Dr. Chahal, are not substantial medical evidence, and substantial medical evidence is required to support a finding on causation, we will rescind the F&O and return this matter for further proceedings so these items may be provided to the doctor. We are taking this action because the WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to “ensure substantial justice in all cases.” (Kuykendall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

The WCJ's credibility determination of supervisor Howell was given great weight but lacked specific findings on personnel actions and their impact on injury causation.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without specific findings on personnel actions, the WCJ's application of the good faith personnel action defense and Rolda analysis was legally flawed.

From the decision · page 11the factual predicates that served as a foundation for the QME’s medical reporting. A WCJ may find different facts than those relied upon by the QME, and, to the extent that those differing facts are based upon the WCJ’s credibility determinations, those determinations should be afforded great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Such determinations, however, must be based on substantial evidence and the resulting decision must clearly and concisely set forth the WCJ’s findings. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 (Appeals Board en banc).) This is doubly true in cases involving a Rolda analysis because if the WCJ disagrees with the factual predicates underlying the QME’s medical judgements, it will be necessary to further develop the record by having the QME reconsider the case based on the actual events of employment as determined by the WCJ. Moreover, to the extent that the QME’s conclusions were based on an inaccurate understanding of the actual events of employment, that would naturally call into question the validity of the QME’s apportionment to each factor as well.

Dr. Chahal opined that work-related factors accounted for approximately 100% causation of psychiatric injury and apportioned 80% work-related and 20% nonwork-related causation. However, his opinion was based on an incomplete medical and employment history as he was not provided with treatment records, witness statements, testimony, or personnel files.

The PQME's opinion was not based on a complete medical and employment history, making it not substantial evidence to support the WCJ's finding on causation.

Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627; Peter Kiewit Sons v. I.A.C. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831; Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162; McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117; Kuykendall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2003) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138; Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 241

Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence; expert medical evidence is essential for causation of cumulative psychiatric claims.

Expert medical opinion must be based on an adequate medical and employment history to be substantial evidence; the WCJ must properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and Rolda analysis; the record must be further developed if evidence is insufficient.

From the decision · page 7Decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) “Where an issue is exclusively a matter of scientific medical knowledge, expert evidence is essential to sustain a [Appeals Board] finding; lay testimony or opinion in support of such a finding does not measure up to the standard of substantial evidence.” (Peter Kiewit Sons v.

PQME Dr. Chahal's opinion was based on an incomplete medical and employment history as he was not provided with treatment records, witness statements, testimony, or personnel files.

From the decision · page 8resource department. It is baffling that the performance improvement plans are not part of the record, and that Dr. Chahal has not been provided with the performance improvement plans nor applicant’s actual personnel file. Because Dr. Chahal has not been provided with these treatment records, statements, testimony, and employment records, it is inescapably obvious that the doctor’s opinions are not premised on a complete history. Dr. Chahal’s opinions are therefore not substantial. Because Dr. Chahal’s opinions, through no apparent fault of Dr. Chahal, are not substantial medical evidence, and substantial medical evidence is required to support a finding on causation, we will rescind the F&O and return this matter for further proceedings so these items may be provided to the doctor. We are taking this action because the WCJ and the Appeals Board have a duty to further develop the record where there is insufficient evidence on an issue. (McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261].) The Appeals Board has a constitutional mandate to “ensure substantial justice in all cases.” (Kuykendall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

WCJ's credibility determination of supervisor Howell's testimony was given great weight but lacked specific findings on personnel actions and their impact on injury causation.

From the decision · page 11the factual predicates that served as a foundation for the QME’s medical reporting. A WCJ may find different facts than those relied upon by the QME, and, to the extent that those differing facts are based upon the WCJ’s credibility determinations, those determinations should be afforded great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Such determinations, however, must be based on substantial evidence and the resulting decision must clearly and concisely set forth the WCJ’s findings. (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 475 (Appeals Board en banc).) This is doubly true in cases involving a Rolda analysis because if the WCJ disagrees with the factual predicates underlying the QME’s medical judgements, it will be necessary to further develop the record by having the QME reconsider the case based on the actual events of employment as determined by the WCJ. Moreover, to the extent that the QME’s conclusions were based on an inaccurate understanding of the actual events of employment, that would naturally call into question the validity of the QME’s apportionment to each factor as well.