California WCABPanel decision

ADJ8124831 · June 8, 2026

Reconsideration granted solely to amend the Findings of Fact to include the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code section 5412 as March 15, 2012; otherwise, the Findings and Award of March 23, 2026 are affirmed.

Issues decided: 3
Medical opinions weighed: 4
Authorities named: 2
District office: San Diego

What the panel ordered

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 6, 2024, May 16, 2024.

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 prevailedneck · back · bilateral shoulders · bilateral hips · bilateral arms · bilateral knees · bilateral ankles · bilateral legs · bilateral feet · elbows · hands · fingers · toes · jaw · psychiatric injury · headaches · sleep disorder

The WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to multiple body parts based on substantial medical evidence, particularly relying on the treating physician Dr. Einbund's report, which was found more persuasive than other medical opinions.

Other disputed issue

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to multiple body parts as found by the WCJ based on substantial medical evidence, particularly the treating physician's report.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supported the finding of compensable injury and permanent disability in favor of the applicant.

The parties stipulated that the last date of injurious exposure was August 13, 2010, which was used to determine the one-year period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supported the Board's determination of the correct liability period, favoring the defense's position on liability period.

From the decision · page 6Turning to the section 5500.5 period of liability, the parties have stipulated that the last date of injurious exposure was August 13, 2010. (Report, at p. 21; Transcript of Proceedings, dated September 16, 2019, at p. 4:23; Minutes of Hearing, dated June 4, 2025, at p. 2:4.) Because the last date of injurious exposure occurred prior to the section 5412 date of injury of March 15, 2012, the WCJ has concluded that the period of liability under section 5500.5 is the one-year period prior to August 13, 2010. (Report, at pp. 4-5.)

Defendants denied liability, allowing applicant to choose his own treating physician, whose medical opinion was found substantial and persuasive by the WCJ.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supported the acceptance of the treating physician's report as substantial evidence, favoring the applicant's claim.

From the decision · page 8Defendant also contends the reporting of primary treating physician (PTP) Dr. Einbund is inadmissible in evidence because applicant's nomination of the physician to act as PTP was pretextual and obtained to circumvent the requirements of section 4060 to 4062.2. (Petition, at p. 3:13.) We agree with the WCJ's observation, however, that inasmuch as all defendants herein wholly denied liability for applicant's claim, including the provision of medical care, applicant was free to select a physician of his choosing. (Report, at p. 3.) The WCJ has carefully weighed the reporting of both applicant's PTP and the parties' QMEs and has comprehensively discussed the reasons why the reporting of Dr. Einbund was deemed substantial medical evidence. The WCJ has further determined the PTP report to be the more persuasive and well-written medical opinion in evidence. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5-9; see Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221] [WCAB may choose among conflicting medical reports those which it deems most persuasive].) Following our independent review of the entire record, we find no reason to disturb the WCJ's careful weighing of the evidence in this regard.

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.

PTPRelied upon · orthopedic medicine

Provided thorough assessment of each claimed body part and was found more persuasive and well-reasoned by the WCJ, constituting substantial medical evidence supporting injury causation and permanent disability.

The WCJ found the reporting of Dr. Einbund to be the more persuasive and well-reasoned medical opinion and gave it great weight over other medical opinions.

QMERejected · orthopedic surgery

Report did not rise to substantial medical evidence level as it failed to appropriately address causation, broadly attributing injuries to repetitive trauma without detailed analysis.

The WCJ rejected Dr. Amory's opinion as not substantial medical evidence due to inadequate causation analysis.

From the decision · page 12In the case at hand, the WCJ found the reporting of Dr. Einbund to be substantial medical evidence and gave his findings great weight. In contrast, Dr. Amory's did not rise to the level of substantial medical evidence as his reporting failed to address causation appropriately. For example, although Dr. Amory discussed the multiple body parts alleged, under his Causation section he broadly wrote "the patient's orthopedic injuries do appear to be causally related to repetitive trauma." (Defendant's Joint Exhibit 123, page 42) In contrast, Dr. Einbund, had appropriately addressed each alleged body part such that this WCJ found the applicant suffered industrial injury to the following orthopedic body parts; neck, back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hips, bilateral arms, bilateral knees, bilateral ankles, bilateral legs, bilateral feet, elbows, hands, fingers, and toes.

QMENot substantial evidence · neurology

From the decision · page 2The parties obtained reporting from Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) David Amory, M.D. (orthopedic surgery), Ben Mandel, DDS (dentistry), Bijan Zardouz, M.D. (neurology), and Katalin Bassett, M.D. (psychiatry). Applicant further selected treating physician Michael Einbund, M.D., in orthopedic medicine.

QMENot substantial evidence · psychiatry

From the decision · page 2The parties obtained reporting from Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) David Amory, M.D. (orthopedic surgery), Ben Mandel, DDS (dentistry), Bijan Zardouz, M.D. (neurology), and Katalin Bassett, M.D. (psychiatry). Applicant further selected treating physician Michael Einbund, M.D., in orthopedic medicine.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476

A WCJ may rely upon the opinion of one physician even if it is inconsistent with the reports of other examining physicians.

The WCJ relied on the treating physician Dr. Einbund's opinion as substantial evidence over other conflicting medical opinions.

From the decision · page 12factual determinations of the board must be upheld if there is substantial evidence in their support and the relevant and considered opinion of one physician, though inconsistent with other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476, 478-479 [67 Cal.Rptr. 544, 439 P.2d 648]; Standard Rectifier Corp. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 287, 292 [54 Cal.Rptr. 100, 419 P.2d 164]; Fred Gledhill Chevrolet v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1964) 62 Cal.2d 59, 61 [41 Cal.Rptr. 170, 396 P.2d 586]);" Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 71 Cal. 2d 588, 592, 455 P.2d 822, 825, 78 Cal.Rptr. 718, 721, 1969 Cal. LEXIS 274, 34 Cal. Comp. Cases 424

Labor Code section 5500.5

The period of liability under Labor Code section 5500.5 is the one-year period prior to the earlier of the date of injury under section 5412 or the last date of injurious exposure.

The WCJ and Board applied this standard to determine the liability period as August 13, 2009 to August 13, 2010 based on the parties' stipulation and the date of injury.

From the decision · page 6Turning to the section 5500.5 period of liability, the parties have stipulated that the last date of injurious exposure was August 13, 2010. (Report, at p. 21; Transcript of Proceedings, dated September 16, 2019, at p. 4:23; Minutes of Hearing, dated June 4, 2025, at p. 2:4.) Because the last date of injurious exposure occurred prior to the section 5412 date of injury of March 15, 2012, the WCJ has concluded that the period of liability under section 5500.5 is the one-year period prior to August 13, 2010. (Report, at pp. 4-5.)