ADJ8775554 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; January 12, 2026 Findings of Fact rescinded; new findings substituted that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE on March 27, 2012; other issues deferred.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's January 12, 2026 Findings of Fact denying injury AOE/COE; WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation to deny reconsideration; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the Findings, substituting new findings of injury AOE/COE.

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 prevailedneurologic · lumbar spine · vision · psyche · facial scarring · both hands · both arms · chest · urinary system

Applicant provided unrebutted testimony and medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE; WCJ erred in disbelieving applicant's testimony and placing disproportionate weight on EDD form; absence of contrary evidence from defendant; injury found compensable by preponderance of evidence.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 12, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the Findings, as relevant here, the WCJ found that though applicant was found to be defendant's employee, applicant did not meet his burden of proving injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). As a result, the WCJ ordered that applicant take nothing in connection with his Application for Adjudication.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant provided unrebutted testimony that he was working at the time of injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This testimony was consistent with medical records and AME opinions, and defendant offered no rebuttal evidence.

From the decision · page 10Yet, here, in finding applicant failed to meet his burden, the WCJ drew conclusions based on the absence of evidence rather than relying on objective evidence. On the contrary, applicant provided unrebutted testimony that he was working at the time of injury, with the Application for Adjudication being filed within a year of the injury. Applicant's testimony is consistent with the medical treatment records summarized by AME Dr. Berman in which applicant reported the injury occurred while working, and the assessments of AMEs Dr. Berman and Dr. Nudleman who indicated applicant's injury was industrial. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019, pp. 2-42; see, p. 28, § 5; App. Exh. 4, AME Report of Dr. Nudleman, April 16, 2022, p. 7, § 2.). Additionally, applicant's testimony is not necessarily inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as discussed below.

Medical evidence documented injury consistent with industrial accident and post-traumatic head syndrome explaining memory issues.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported applicant's credibility and causation, rebutting WCJ's disbelief of applicant's testimony.

From the decision · page 2Facts admitted included that at the time of injury POBA was uninsured, POBA paid no benefits, and POBA furnished no medical treatment. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH), May 7, 2025, lines 9-11.) Exhibits admitted into evidence at the May 7, 2025 trial included an agreed medical evaluation (AME) report and deposition of Jeffrey Berman, M.D. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019; App. Exh. 2, Deposition Transcript of AME Dr. Berman, June 25, 2020.). Dr. Berman's AME report reflects he took applicant's history, conducted a physical examination, and reviewed approximately 1,300 pages of records. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019, pp. 2-42; see, p. 43, § 4.) Although applicant's medical records were not independently offered into evidence, Dr.

Defendant did not present any evidence or witnesses to rebut applicant's claim of working at time of injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Absence of rebuttal evidence left applicant's testimony unrebutted and credible.

From the decision · page 11defendant is not under a duty to disprove injury, some testimony or documentation provided by defendant indicating applicant was not working would have been useful. However, defendant offered nothing in rebuttal of applicant's recitation of the events on March 27, 2012. No evidence, witnesses, trial brief, or answer to the Petition, despite being involved in this case since at least 2013 and agreeing to AMEs. As a result, applicant's unrebutted testimony should have been found sufficient for a finding of injury AOE/COE.

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.

AMERelied upon

Comprehensive record review documenting extensive history of back pain and neurological symptoms after March 2012 motor vehicle accident; opined injury was industrial and causally related to employment accident.

Dr. Berman's AME report and deposition provided detailed medical history and causation opinion supporting injury AOE/COE.

From the decision · page 2Facts admitted included that at the time of injury POBA was uninsured, POBA paid no benefits, and POBA furnished no medical treatment. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH), May 7, 2025, lines 9-11.) Exhibits admitted into evidence at the May 7, 2025 trial included an agreed medical evaluation (AME) report and deposition of Jeffrey Berman, M.D. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019; App. Exh. 2, Deposition Transcript of AME Dr. Berman, June 25, 2020.). Dr. Berman's AME report reflects he took applicant's history, conducted a physical examination, and reviewed approximately 1,300 pages of records. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019, pp. 2-42; see, p. 43, § 4.) Although applicant's medical records were not independently offered into evidence, Dr.

AMERelied upon

Described applicant's injury as industrial in two AME reports and deposition.

Dr. Nudleman's AME reports and deposition supported the finding of industrial injury.

From the decision · page 3Also admitted into evidence at the May 7, 2025 trial were two AME reports and the deposition of Kenneth Nudleman, M.D. (App. Exh. 3, AME Report of Dr. Nudleman, November 17, 2021; App. Exh. 4, AME Report of Dr. Nudleman, April 16, 2022; App. Exh. 5, Deposition Transcript of AME Dr. Nudleman, October 18, 2022.) Dr. Nudleman described applicant's injury as industrial. (App. Exh. 4, AME Report of Dr. Nudleman, April 16, 2022, p. 7, § 2.)

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 3202.5

Preponderance of the evidence standard for proving compensable injury.

Applicant met burden by preponderance of evidence despite lack of documentary proof; unrebutted testimony and medical evidence sufficient.

From the decision · page 10We begin by observing that the WCJ appeared to subject applicant to a higher standard than our jurisprudence requires. While we acknowledge that there is no documentary evidence stating applicant was working on the date of injury, applicant meets their burden with "evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and the greater probability of truth." (Lab. Code, § 3202.5.) In this case, there is simply no objective reason to reject applicant's unrebutted testimony, and there is no evidence showing applicant was not working on the date of injury. Where there is a question of fact, as in this case, the absence of evidence does not necessarily disprove that fact.

South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291

Broad definition of work-related injury and fluid criteria for AOE/COE determination.

Injury causation need only be a contributory cause; criteria are fluid and fact-specific.

From the decision · page 8Although it is the employee's burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they sustained a compensable injury, the concept of what constitutes a work-related injury is broad. (South Coast Framing 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.) The determination of whether an injury arises out of and in the course of employment is based on "criteria" that are "fluid," and "must therefore be decided on the facts peculiar to each case." (Westbrooks v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 249 [53 Cal.Comp.Cases 157]; see also, LaTourette, supra, at pp. 651-652.) If we look for a causal connection between the employment and the injury, such connection need not be the sole cause; it is sufficient if it is a contributory cause. (Gideon, supra, at 680; Maher, supra, at p. 736; Madin v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 90, 92§ 93 [21 Cal. Comp.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's credible testimony of working at time of injury, unrebutted by defendant.

From the decision · page 10Yet, here, in finding applicant failed to meet his burden, the WCJ drew conclusions based on the absence of evidence rather than relying on objective evidence. On the contrary, applicant provided unrebutted testimony that he was working at the time of injury, with the Application for Adjudication being filed within a year of the injury. Applicant's testimony is consistent with the medical treatment records summarized by AME Dr. Berman in which applicant reported the injury occurred while working, and the assessments of AMEs Dr. Berman and Dr. Nudleman who indicated applicant's injury was industrial. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019, pp. 2-42; see, p. 28, § 5; App. Exh. 4, AME Report of Dr. Nudleman, April 16, 2022, p. 7, § 2.). Additionally, applicant's testimony is not necessarily inconsistent with the other evidence of record, as discussed below.

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Medical records and AME reports documenting injury and symptoms consistent with industrial injury.

From the decision · page 2Facts admitted included that at the time of injury POBA was uninsured, POBA paid no benefits, and POBA furnished no medical treatment. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH), May 7, 2025, lines 9-11.) Exhibits admitted into evidence at the May 7, 2025 trial included an agreed medical evaluation (AME) report and deposition of Jeffrey Berman, M.D. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019; App. Exh. 2, Deposition Transcript of AME Dr. Berman, June 25, 2020.). Dr. Berman's AME report reflects he took applicant's history, conducted a physical examination, and reviewed approximately 1,300 pages of records. (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019, pp. 2-42; see, p. 43, § 4.) Although applicant's medical records were not independently offered into evidence, Dr.

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's memory issues explained by post-traumatic head syndrome and time lapse since injury.

From the decision · page 11Next, we address the evidence cited by the WCJ to deny applicant's claim. First, although the WCJ noted applicant "did not recall any corroborative details regarding the date of injury," the WCJ failed to consider extenuating circumstances that may have affected applicant's recollection, including the substantial gap in time of about 14 years since the injury occurred, treatment records reflecting applicant reported memory loss soon after the accident, and evidence by AME Dr. Nudleman that applicant has a post-traumatic head syndrome (App. Exh. 1, AME Report of Dr. Berman, August 8, 2019, p. 15, § 2-p. 16, § 1; App. Exh. 4, AME Report of Dr. Nudleman, April 16, 2022, p. 7, § 4). All of which could certainly account for applicant's memory issues.

ADJ8775554 · April 20, 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