What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ Findings and Orders affirmed
Petition for Reconsideration of WCJ Findings and Orders of January 14, 2022
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's finding that the applicant failed to prove industrial injury in hypertension or stroke is supported by the persuasive opinion of Dr. Lineback, who found the hypertension and stroke nonindustrial, outweighing Dr. Lipper's contrary opinion.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Orders of January 14, 2022 wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury while employed as a clinical laboratory scientist during a cumulative period ending on March 15, 2011. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim. As relevant to the instant Petition for Reconsideration, in this matter, applicant claimed that he sustained a cumulative injury in the form of hypertension and to the psyche. Applicant argued that an industrial hypertension injury contributed to a subsequent stroke.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's stroke occurred after retirement, supporting nonindustrial causation.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This timing factor supported the conclusion that the stroke was nonindustrial.
From the decision · page 2applicant's retirement was another factor in favor of finding the hypertension nonindustrial.
Applicant's hypertension predated job stress and was nonindustrial according to Dr. Lineback's opinion.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the finding that the stroke and hypertension were nonindustrial, leading to denial of industrial injury.
From the decision · page 2As stated previously, this patient has a number of risk factors for stroke, including hypertension, diabetes, history of smoking and high cholesterol. Virtually all of those risk factors would be considered nonindustrial, since the patient's hypertension and diabetes both predated the time that his job became moderately to severely stressful (in approximately 2004). Therefore, it is medically probable that his nonindustrial hypertension was a primary causative factor in the pathogenesis of his stroke due to left cerebellar hemorrhage. Since his hypertension was nonindustrial, it would follow that his stroke would also be considered nonindustrial. Therefore, both the patient's hypertension and his stroke would be considered nonindustrial.
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.
Hypertension and stroke were nonindustrial; hypertension predated job stress; stroke caused by nonindustrial hypertension and other risk factors.
The WCJ found Dr. Lineback's opinion more persuasive and relied upon it to deny industrial injury.
From the decision · page 1With regard to the issue of industrial injury in the form of hypertension, applicant was evaluated by qualified medical evaluator internist James F. Lineback, M.D. and treating internist Arthur E. Lipper, M.D.
Work stress contributed to aggravation/acceleration of preexisting hypertension and eventual stroke.
The WCJ found Dr. Lipper's opinion less persuasive and rejected it in favor of Dr. Lineback's opinion.
From the decision · page 2Dr. Lipper agreed that applicant had preexisting hypertension, but opined that work stress
No direct injury to psyche found; any psychiatric injury was consequence of nonindustrial stroke.
No direct psychiatric injury found; injury to psyche was nonindustrial consequence of stroke.
From the decision · page 3With regard to the issue of injury to the psyche, as admitted in the Petition for Reconsideration (pp. 5-6), neither qualified medical evaluator psychiatrist Adel Mostafavi, M.D. nor treating psychologist Heath Hinze, Psy.D. found direct injury to the psyche. Rather, any injury to the psyche was a consequence of applicant's stroke. Since, as noted above, applicant's stroke was nonindustrial, any psychiatric injury was also nonindustrial.
No direct injury to psyche found; any psychiatric injury was consequence of nonindustrial stroke.
No direct psychiatric injury found; injury to psyche was nonindustrial consequence of stroke.
From the decision · page 3With regard to the issue of injury to the psyche, as admitted in the Petition for Reconsideration (pp. 5-6), neither qualified medical evaluator psychiatrist Adel Mostafavi, M.D. nor treating psychologist Heath Hinze, Psy.D. found direct injury to the psyche. Rather, any injury to the psyche was a consequence of applicant's stroke. Since, as noted above, applicant's stroke was nonindustrial, any psychiatric injury was also nonindustrial.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Le Vesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221]
The relevant and considered opinion of one physician, though inconsistent with other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence; the WCJ may choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on those deemed most persuasive.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Lineback's opinion over Dr. Lipper's to deny industrial injury.
From the decision · page 3Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on those deemed most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].) There is nothing in the record compelling enough for us to reject the WCJ's determination that the opinions of Dr. Lineback were more persuasive than the opinions of Dr. Lipper. Thus, we do not disturb the WCJ's finding that applicant failed to prove industrial injury in the forms of hypertension or stroke.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Conflicting medical opinions of Dr. Lineback and Dr. Lipper on causation of hypertension and stroke
From the decision · page 3Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on those deemed most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].) There is nothing in the record compelling enough for us to reject the WCJ's determination that the opinions of Dr. Lineback were more persuasive than the opinions of Dr. Lipper. Thus, we do not disturb the WCJ's finding that applicant failed to prove industrial injury in the forms of hypertension or stroke.
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.