What the panel ordered
The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's Joint Findings, Award, & Order except it amended the permanent disability rating for the applicant's February 9, 2012 left thigh injury to 6% permanent disability, warranting 18 weeks of permanent disability indemnity.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant to challenge the Joint Findings, Award, & Order issued by the WCJ on August 2, 2022, was considered and denied except for a clerical correction to the permanent disability rating for the left thigh injury.
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 WCAB found the applicant sustained an industrial injury to the left thigh on February 9, 2012, resulting in 6% permanent disability, supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Jose Kim and others.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award, & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left thigh (ADJ8214086), but did not sustain an industrial injury to any other body parts claimed in case number ADJ8214086, nor did applicant sustain an injury AOE/COE in any of the other cases litigated and submitted for decision.
The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to support industrial injury to any other claimed body parts besides the left thigh, based on the medical opinions of Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Kim and the lack of credible evidence of industrial causation for other claims.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award, & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left thigh (ADJ8214086), but did not sustain an industrial injury to any other body parts claimed in case number ADJ8214086, nor did applicant sustain an injury AOE/COE in any of the other cases litigated and submitted for decision.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained an industrial injury to the left thigh on February 9, 2012, resulting in 6% permanent disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Jose Kim and others, leading to amendment of the permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award, & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left thigh (ADJ8214086), but did not sustain an industrial injury to any other body parts claimed in case number ADJ8214086, nor did applicant sustain an injury AOE/COE in any of the other cases litigated and submitted for decision.
No credible evidence of industrial injury to other claimed body parts besides the left thigh.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Based on medical opinions and lack of credible evidence, leading to denial of other injury claims.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings, Award, & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her left thigh (ADJ8214086), but did not sustain an industrial injury to any other body parts claimed in case number ADJ8214086, nor did applicant sustain an injury AOE/COE in any of the other cases litigated and submitted for decision.
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.
Diagnosed applicant with left hamstring strain from February 9, 2012 work injury; attributed orthopedic findings to previous industrial injuries and non-industrial auto accidents; found no industrial injury to other claimed body parts besides left thigh.
Dr. Kim's medical reports were admitted as substantial medical evidence and supported the finding of injury to the left thigh only.
From the decision · page 3On May 13, 2013, orthopedic qualified medical examiner (QME) Hose Kim, M.D.
Found permanent disability limited to hypertensive disorder, with 50% industrial and 50% non-industrial causation; deferred to trier of fact on work stress as cause; did not find industrial injury to other claimed body parts.
Dr. Hirsch's opinion was considered but found not to establish industrial injury beyond the left thigh; his deferral to the trier of fact on stress was noted but not credited as industrial injury.
From the decision · page 3Based on the history I obtained from the applicant, physical examination, laboratory and test results, review of medical records, and reference to the medical literature, I do believe she has sustained permanent disability in the industrial arena limited to her hypertensive disorder and predicated on confirmation by the Trier of Fact that the applicant's perceptions of stress at work are legitimately viewed as a potential cause of industrial illness (on a secondary basis) in the field of Internal Medicine. (Def. Exh. O, Dr. Hirsch, February 14, 2014, pp. 11 - 12.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Code of Regulations §10945(a)
Petitions for Reconsideration must fairly state all material evidence relative to the points at issue (CCR §10945(a)).
The petition was evaluated for compliance with this standard.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony and medical reports of Dr. Jose Kim
From the decision · page 13The evidence includes applicant's stated reliance on the opinion of Dr. Kim as set forth in the stipulations and issues prepared for the initial trial before Judge Frisch at the initial trial hearing on 5/4/2017 as to case numbers ADJ9170713, ADJ9190714, and ADJ8214086. This last case is the case that is no longer the basis for the Petition for Reconsideration. Applicant challenged whether Dr. Kim's opinion was substantial medical evidence on ADJ9268621 which is the claimed continuous trauma from 11/13/2013 to 11/20/2013. Dr. Jose Kim's medical reports were admitted into evidence without objection.
Lack of credible evidence for industrial causation of hypertension and other claimed injuries
From the decision · page 18Based on this record, there is no credible basis to find that the applicant sustained a hypertension injury from the claims that are part of this litigation. Stress from a reasonable termination based in part on dishonest and fraudulent conduct is not compensable. The applicant has not met her burden of proving an internal industrial injury. There is no reasonable basis to develop this record other than for the issues of earnings (the parties offered no evidence of or stipulation as to earnings) and the lien against compensation.
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.