ADJ21248340 · October 16, 2026

The WCJ and WCAB found applicant credible based on consistent testimony and medical evidence from QME Dr. Lum, supported by objective findings and corroborating medical records, establishing injury AOE/COE to lower back and right leg on June 25, 2025.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 21, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a groundsman on June 25, 2025, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lower back and right leg. The WCJ deferred and reserved all other issues. Defendant, in essence, contends that the evidence does not support applicant’s credibility and the finding of injury AOE/COE. Defendant further contends it has subsequently received sub rosa video evidence that further places applicant’s credibility in question. We have received an Answer from applicant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the allegations of defendant’s Petition and the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed below, as well as the reasons stated in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny reconsideration.

Applicant's credible testimony and consistent injury description to QME Dr. Lum and in medical records.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the finding of injury AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence.

From the decision · page 2FACTS We will briefly review the relevant facts. On July 18, 2025, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) claiming an injury to his back and leg while employed by defendant as a groundsman on June 24, 2025. On November 15, 2025, applicant was evaluated by orthopedic surgeon panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Zachary Lum, D.O. At the evaluation, applicant reported that... on June 24, 2025, he sustained an industrial injury while performing his usual and customary job duties as a groundman for Barrett Business Services.

Applicant sustained a specific industrial injury to the lumbar spine and right leg on June 24, 2025, consistent with history, physical findings, imaging, and electrodiagnostic studies; applicant was found credible with no symptom exaggeration; injury causally related to employment.

Dr. Lum found applicant credible and opined within reasonable medical probability that the lumbar spine injury and right-sided radiculopathy were industrially caused by the June 24, 2025 work incident.

From the decision · page 2FACTS We will briefly review the relevant facts. On July 18, 2025, applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim (Application) claiming an injury to his back and leg while employed by defendant as a groundsman on June 24, 2025. On November 15, 2025, applicant was evaluated by orthopedic surgeon panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Zachary Lum, D.O. At the evaluation, applicant reported that... on June 24, 2025, he sustained an industrial injury while performing his usual and customary job duties as a groundman for Barrett Business Services.

Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5; South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; Rosas v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692

An employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence; causation requires only a contributing cause by reasonable medical probability, not scientific certainty.

The Board applied these standards to find the applicant met the burden of proving injury AOE/COE based on credible testimony and medical evidence.

From the decision · page 5(Wright v. Beverly Fabrics (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 51].) Section 3600(a) provides for liability for injuries sustained “arising out of and in the course of the employment.” Section 3600(a)(2) requires as a condition of compensation that “at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment and is acting within the course of his or her employment.” (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(2).) An employer is liable for workers’ compensation benefits “without regard to negligence.” (Lab. Code, § 3600(a).) An employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, §§ 3600(a), 3202.5.) For the purpose of meeting the causation requirement in a workers’ compensation injury claim, it is sufficient if the work is a contributing cause of the injury. (South Coast Framing, supra, at pp. 298-299.) “The applicant in a workers’ compensation proceeding has the burden of proving industrial causation by a ‘reasonable probability.’ (citation) That burden manifestly does not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty.” (Rosas v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1700-1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].)

Applicant's credible testimony at trial and consistent reporting to medical evaluators and records.

From the decision · page 7At trial, Applicant testified credibly that he was injured while working with logs. Whether the exact moment of pain occurred while lifting a log or rolling a log is inconsequential.