ADJ9936596 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Moreno Valley Unified School District was denied, and Moreno Valley Unified was ordered to take nothing by way of its January 12, 2021 Amended Petition for Reimbursement.

Defendant Moreno Valley Unified School District filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on May 18, 2022, which denied Moreno Valley Unified's January 12, 2021 Amended Petition for Reimbursement.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the WCJ's findings and order were supported by substantial evidence, and Moreno Valley Unified failed to show good cause for further development of the record.

From the decision · page 1Defendant Moreno Valley Unified School District (Moreno Valley Unified) seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 18, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that the reports of Mark M. Ngo, M.D., are not substantial evidence to support the January 12, 2021 Amended Petition for Reimbursement, and that further development of the record was not necessary; the WCJ ordered that Moreno Valley Unified take nothing by way of its January 12, 2021 Amended Petition for Reimbursement.

The facts that decided it

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

Dr. Ngo's medical opinion did not provide substantial evidence to support reimbursement against co-defendants due to lack of detailed apportionment.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This led to denial of Moreno Valley Unified's petition for reimbursement.

From the decision · page 16No further delineation is provided by PQME Dr. Ngo as to the extent of exposure by the prior employer as insured by Chubb and ICW. And while the petitioner is correct that such report might suggest at least a minimal exposure to the co-defendants, the opinion does not represent substantial medical evidence upon which an award of reimbursement could be made.

Moreno Valley Unified failed to complete discovery after Dr. Ngo's 2018 deposition and did not show good cause for further development of the record.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure justified denial of the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 5Dr. Ngo's supplemental report of 4/4/2022 was taken into evidence (Defendant's Exhibit "I"). Given the fact that defendant MVUSD had been given the opportunity to obtain that supplemental report and it had been taken into evidence, the court is persuaded that further development of the record is not needed. (Report, p. 4.) Further, as noted above, the Application claiming that the applicant sustained injury in the form of cancer as a result of his employment by Moss Bros Dodge, was filed on May 19, 2016. Dr. Ngo re-examined the applicant on April 14, 2017, and his deposition was taken on January 12, 2018. (See Def. Exh. G, Dr. Ngo, January 12, 2018, deposition transcript.) Moreno Valley Unified filed its Amended Petition for Reimbursement on January 12, 2021. Based on our review of the trial record and the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) ADJ file, it appears that Moreno Valley Unified conducted no discovery after Dr.

Dr. Padova's medical reports constituted substantial evidence supporting denial of reimbursement claim against Moreno Valley Dodge and related defendants.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The substantial evidence supported the WCJ's order denying reimbursement.

From the decision · page 3the applicant's work for Moss Bros Dodge was not a contributing cause of the applicant's cancer. The doctor

ADJ9936596 · August 5, 2022

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