ADJ21161039 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted solely to admit lien claimants' exhibits 1-3 into evidence; June 15, 2026 Findings of Fact affirmedp. 6

Petition for Reconsideration filed July 10, 2026, timely acted upon by WCAB on or before September 8, 2026

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/COEApplicant prevailed

The WCJ found substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE based on Dr. Nikakhtar's medical opinion, which was unrefuted and based on reasonable medical probability after an adequate examination and evaluation. Defendant failed to provide evidence to refute the medical history or opinion. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's findings and admitted lien claimants' exhibits into evidence.

From the decision · page 4The medical opinions of Dr. Nikakhtar constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE and were unrefuted. The WCJ provided the following analysis in the Opinion on Decision (OOD): A defendant will not be liable for medical treatment where there is no industrial injury. (Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1593 (Appeals Board en banc).) Where a lien claimant litigates the issue of entitlement to payment for industrially related medical treatment, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish industrial injury by a preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1592.)”

The facts that decided it

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

Dr. Nikakhtar’s medical opinion was based on reasonable medical probability after an adequate examination and evaluation, and was unrefuted by defendant.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This medical opinion constituted substantial evidence supporting the finding of injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 4The medical opinions of Dr. Nikakhtar constitutes substantial medical evidence of injury AOE/COE and were unrefuted. The WCJ provided the following analysis in the Opinion on Decision (OOD): A defendant will not be liable for medical treatment where there is no industrial injury. (Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588, 1593 (Appeals Board en banc).) Where a lien claimant litigates the issue of entitlement to payment for industrially related medical treatment, the lien claimant stands in the shoes of the injured worker and the lien claimant must establish industrial injury by a preponderance of evidence. (Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Martin) (1985) Cal.3d 57, 67 [50 Cal.Comp.Cases 411]; Kunz, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1592.)”

Defendant offered no evidence to refute the medical and injury histories in Dr. Nikakhtar’s reports, and no evidence was presented to support defendant’s oral contention that the histories were false or inaccurate.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of contrary evidence supported the credibility and weight of the medical opinion, favoring applicant.

From the decision · page 10Other than that oral contention by counsel, itself unsubstantiated by oral offers of proof, the record was entirely devoid of any substantial evidence supporting the contention. The medical and injury histories contained in the medical reporting (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) were unrefuted by any evidence presented by defendant or otherwise. Defendant also orally objected to Lien Claimant’s Exhibit 1 on the further basis that service upon Defendant was first made 4/17/26, after the occurrence of the Lien Conference. Lien Claimant Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were designated by Lien Claimants on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement. Evidence in the trial record demonstrated transmittal to defendant LWP Claims well prior to the Lien Conference. Defendant’s objections to Lien claimant Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were overruled and the exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Findings and Opinion, page 6) The court’s evidentiary rulings are not challenged by the petitioner. The only evidence submitted into the trial record on behalf of defendant was Exhibit A, a Notice of Denial of the claim.

ADJ21161039 · September 4, 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