ADJ10128923 · December 11, 2023

The WCAB panel found that the applicant sustained injury to bilateral shoulders and cervical and lumbar spines during employment, supported by substantial evidence including medical reports and the consolidation of companion cases.

Applicant sustained injury to bilateral shoulders and cervical and lumbar spines during employment from September 19, 2014 through September 17, 2015.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment, favoring the applicant's claim.

Both specific injury and cumulative injury cases were consolidated and resolved by a single Compromise and Release with no differentiation between injuries.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports the finding that lien claimant's filing under one ADJ number was sufficient and supports adjudication on the merits.

From the decision · page 2Both applicant's specific injury and cumulative injury cases resolved via a single Compromise and Release, and an Order Approving issued on June 14, 2017. According to the C&R, there was no effort to differentiate between the two claimed injuries, and applicant received a single sum in resolution of both cases.

Reports of Ameri Chiropractic were unrebutted and considered substantial evidence supporting the cumulative injury claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supports the finding of compensable cumulative injury and causation.

From the decision · page 11Dr: Hardy's finds injury in the specific injury and fails to opine on the continuous trauma claim, therefore, the reports of Ameri Chiropractic are unrebutted and appeared to the undersigned WCJ to be substantial in nature.

Considered applicant to have reached maximum medical improvement from a neurological perspective for injuries dated 9/19/14 and cumulative trauma 9/19/14 - 9/17/15; opined headaches caused by the 9/19/14 injury.

Supports injury and causation findings for both specific and cumulative trauma injuries.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was referred by his primary treating physician for a neurologic consult. On June 30, 2016, lien claimant Kenneth Geiger, M.D., evaluated applicant and prepared a report. (Lien Claimant Geiger's 6.) The caption identifies "9/19/14 & C.T. 9/19/14 - 9/17/15" as the dates of injury. Dr. Geiger stated that "At present, I would consider this patient to have reached a Level of Maximum Medical Improvement from a neurological perspective with regard to the 9/19/14 and

Found injury causation for specific injury but failed to opine on continuous trauma claim; his findings were consistent with other medical evidence.

Supports injury causation for specific injury but not for cumulative trauma, leaving Ameri Chiropractic reports unrebutted.

From the decision · page 11Permanent and stationary status applicant is at maximum medical improvement. Applicant was likely permanent stationary two months following the examination of chiropractor Arshaid. This examination was on March 5, 2015 indicating permanent stationary status by May 5, 2015 it is noted at this juncture he had returned to his usual and customary duties and had received a settlement for his prior neck and back injury. Causation: Findings and the medical records indicate that the applicant sustained strains.to his cervical and lumbar spines as well as both shoulders as described in the motor vehicle accident of September 19, 2014. There is evidence of medical causation for the described musculoskeletal strains on September 19, 2014. Dr. Hardy's findings on causation in his 9/22/2016 report are identical to those above, although the CT was noted in the caption, Dr. Hardy fails to opine upon the continuous trauma claim in either report regarding causation.

Provided chiropractic care and treatment including acupuncture and physical therapy; supported continuous trauma injury claim.

Supports continuous trauma injury claim as unrebutted evidence.

Examined applicant and recommended epidural injections; supported injury causation for specific injury.

Supports injury causation for specific injury.

Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 399; Dorman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 1009; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 291

Medical treatment is not apportionable; liability extends to reasonable and necessary treatment for industrial injury even if non-industrial conditions are also treated.

Defendant cannot segregate and delay necessary medical treatment; liability is for the entire treatment visit, not portions.

From the decision · page 3We first observe that it is a fundamental precept that medical treatment is not apportionable. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 399 [33 Cal. Comp. Cases 647], Dorman v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 1009, 1020, [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 302, 309].) Where treatment of non-industrial conditions is necessary to provide treatment to industrial conditions, defendant cannot segregate and delay the necessary medical treatment because it also treats a non-industrial condition. As long as the injury contributes to the need for treatment, defendant is liable to the extent such treatment as is reasonable and necessary. (See South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals. Bd. (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 291 [80 Cal.

Code of Civil Procedure sections 452, 473, 576; WCAB Rule 10617; Elkins v. Derby (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 410; Zurich Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 848

Liberal pleading rules apply in workers' compensation cases to favor adjudication on the merits rather than procedural dismissals.

Technical defects in lien filings do not bar claims if they give notice and are timely; substantial justice is favored.

From the decision · page 4Even assuming for the purposes of argument that there is a requirement that a lien claimant file liens in all possible adjudication numbers, so that lien claimant's pleadings here are procedurally defective, we observe that the principles of "liberal pleading" have infused California's statutory landscape for more than 150 years. Enacted in 1872, Code of Civil Procedure section 452 requires that, "[i]n the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties." Also enacted in 1872, Code of Civil Procedure section 473 provides in pertinent part, "[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Cal.

Reports of Ameri Chiropractic were unrebutted and substantial evidence supporting cumulative injury claim.

From the decision · page 11Dr: Hardy's finds injury in the specific injury and fails to opine on the continuous trauma claim, therefore, the reports of Ameri Chiropractic are unrebutted and appeared to the undersigned WCJ to be substantial in nature.