What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Award rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award issued April 29, 2021, which was granted by the WCAB panel, rescinding the F&A and returning the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 5, 2021.
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 medical evidence, particularly Dr. Matan's reports and deposition, was inconsistent and did not constitute substantial evidence to determine whether the injury was specific, cumulative, or both, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 6Here, applicant claimed injury to his wrists as a result of "repetitive trauma on the job" on June 26, 2013 (the date of the ATV accident) and defendant stipulated the applicant sustained an injury on June 26, 2013. More importantly, as discussed above, Dr. Matan initially stated that applicant's bilateral wrist/nerve condition was caused by the June 26, 2013 ATV accident. (See e.g. Joint Exhs. 1, 2, and 4.) Subsequently, he explained why it was caused by more than 20 years of repetitive and cumulative trauma. (See Joint Exhs. 6 and 7.) At no time did he explain the apparent inconsistency in his stated opinions. Having reviewed the entire record, it is clear that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists but we are unable to determine whether applicant's condition is the result of a specific injury, a cumulative injury, or both. This is a threshold issue that must be determined and Dr. Matan's reports and deposition testimony do not constitute substantial evidence upon which the decision can be made.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Matan's reports and deposition testimony were inconsistent regarding whether the injury was specific, cumulative, or both.
Favours neutral
This inconsistency prevented the WCAB from determining the nature of the injury and constituted insufficient substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 6Here, applicant claimed injury to his wrists as a result of "repetitive trauma on the job" on June 26, 2013 (the date of the ATV accident) and defendant stipulated the applicant sustained an injury on June 26, 2013. More importantly, as discussed above, Dr. Matan initially stated that applicant's bilateral wrist/nerve condition was caused by the June 26, 2013 ATV accident. (See e.g. Joint Exhs. 1, 2, and 4.) Subsequently, he explained why it was caused by more than 20 years of repetitive and cumulative trauma. (See Joint Exhs. 6 and 7.) At no time did he explain the apparent inconsistency in his stated opinions. Having reviewed the entire record, it is clear that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists but we are unable to determine whether applicant's condition is the result of a specific injury, a cumulative injury, or both. This is a threshold issue that must be determined and Dr. Matan's reports and deposition testimony do not constitute substantial evidence upon which the decision can be made.
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.
Applicant's bilateral wrist condition was initially attributed 100% to the June 26, 2013 ATV accident and repetitive use of hands at work, with no apportionment. Later reports indicated the condition was due to over 20 years of repetitive trauma, but the doctor did not clarify the inconsistency.
The inconsistency in Dr. Matan's opinions on whether the injury was specific or cumulative was a threshold issue that prevented the WCAB from determining the nature of the injury.
From the decision · page 6Here, applicant claimed injury to his wrists as a result of "repetitive trauma on the job" on June 26, 2013 (the date of the ATV accident) and defendant stipulated the applicant sustained an injury on June 26, 2013. More importantly, as discussed above, Dr. Matan initially stated that applicant's bilateral wrist/nerve condition was caused by the June 26, 2013 ATV accident. (See e.g. Joint Exhs. 1, 2, and 4.) Subsequently, he explained why it was caused by more than 20 years of repetitive and cumulative trauma. (See Joint Exhs. 6 and 7.) At no time did he explain the apparent inconsistency in his stated opinions. Having reviewed the entire record, it is clear that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists but we are unable to determine whether applicant's condition is the result of a specific injury, a cumulative injury, or both. This is a threshold issue that must be determined and Dr. Matan's reports and deposition testimony do not constitute substantial evidence upon which the decision can be made.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5903, 5952(d); Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc)
An award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record.
The WCAB found that Dr. Matan's reports and deposition did not constitute substantial evidence to determine the injury type, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 5An award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d);
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Matan's inconsistent medical opinions on causation and injury type
From the decision · page 6Here, applicant claimed injury to his wrists as a result of "repetitive trauma on the job" on June 26, 2013 (the date of the ATV accident) and defendant stipulated the applicant sustained an injury on June 26, 2013. More importantly, as discussed above, Dr. Matan initially stated that applicant's bilateral wrist/nerve condition was caused by the June 26, 2013 ATV accident. (See e.g. Joint Exhs. 1, 2, and 4.) Subsequently, he explained why it was caused by more than 20 years of repetitive and cumulative trauma. (See Joint Exhs. 6 and 7.) At no time did he explain the apparent inconsistency in his stated opinions. Having reviewed the entire record, it is clear that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to his bilateral wrists but we are unable to determine whether applicant's condition is the result of a specific injury, a cumulative injury, or both. This is a threshold issue that must be determined and Dr. Matan's reports and deposition testimony do not constitute substantial evidence upon which the decision can be made.
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.