ADJ10079862 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB panel denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his left knee arising out of and in the course of employment.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on April 7, 2021, which found injury AOE/COE to applicant's left knee. The WCJ recommended denial of the petition, and the WCAB panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.

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 prevailedleft knee

The WCJ found applicant's credible testimony and the treating physician Dr. Harwood's medical opinion constituted substantial evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The WCAB panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.

From the decision · page 5In her Report the WCJ states that applicant's "credible testimony" was substantial evidence "that the cumulative trauma injury ending on 6/2/2015 occurred in the course of employment." (Report, p. 8.) It is well known that a WCJ's opinions regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight. (§ 5903, 5952; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. supra; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635-637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ then states that the medical evidence in the trial record "meets the test for sustaining his burden of proof that the cumulative trauma injury ending on 6/2/2015 arose out of employment." (Report, p. 8.)

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 surgeon

Dr. Harwood opined that the applicant's knee injury was industrially caused by the work mandate to wear steel toed boots, which worsened the condition of the knee after prior surgeries and trauma.

Dr. Harwood's opinion was based on his long-term treatment of the applicant, multiple surgeries performed, and his knowledge of the applicant's condition worsening after the work boot mandate. His opinion was found to be substantial evidence and not speculative.

From the decision · page 5Review of the record indicates that Dr. Harwood is an orthopedic surgeon, that as applicant's treating physician he performed several left knee surgeries, and that he was well aware of applicant's long term treatment history. Further, as noted above, he stated that it was not uncommon for him to deal with the effects of his patients wearing work boots after having undergone knee surgery. Thus, it is clear that his opinions as to the cause of applicant's injury are not based on surmise speculation or guess, and in turn, constitute substantial evidence.

QMERejected · physical medicine and rehabilitation

Dr. Post opined that the applicant's left knee condition was related to a pre-existing condition and joint infection, and he could not find industrial causation related to the work activities or the boot mandate.

Dr. Post's opinion was based on medical record review and history, but the WCAB found it less persuasive than the treating physician's opinion.

From the decision · page 2If the applicant continues to profess that he had a specific industrial injury on 6/2/15 as he described in his deposition, failed to relate to me, and was never documented in any medical records provided, that is a factual dispute that needs to be addressed by the Trier of Fact. What is also notable is that the problem related to the left knee when he presented to Dr. Harwood was not related to a biomechanical problem... but rather an infection.... ... Turning attention back to the ingrown toenail, I cannot state with medical probability that wearing leather boots resulted in the ingrown toenail. The cause of the applicant's chronic left knee pain is related to his pre-existing left knee condition and subsequent joint infection. Although I acknowledge that the cause of infections is outside the scope of my expertise, based on the history presented, and after very careful review of the available medical records, I am unable to find industrial any causation. (Def. Exh. A1, pp. 44 § 45.)

QMERejected · internal medicine

Dr. Green found no medical basis that the toe infection caused the subsequent knee infection or injury and did not find industrial causation.

Dr. Green's opinion was based on medical record review and examination but was not credited over the treating physician's opinion.

ADJ10079862 · June 21, 2021

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