What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Applicant, represented by counsel but filing pro per, petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings and Award dated June 15, 2023, which found admitted industrial injury to some body parts, denied others, and awarded 48% permanent disability and further medical treatment.
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 WCJ found admitted injury to head, neck, and back, but no evidence supported injury to trunk, teeth, or hypertension; applicant pointed to no evidence for teeth/gum injury.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, who has filed his own Petition for Reconsideration although he is represented by counsel, seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of June 15, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed on August 11, 2016 as a security guard, applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to his head, neck and back, but did not sustain industrial injury to his trunk, teeth and in the form of hypertension. It was found that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 48% and the need for further medical treatment.
The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore (neurology) and Dr. Watkin (orthopedics), which the WCJ relied on; applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient or why the record should be further developed.
From the decision · page 2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant pointed to no evidence in the record or outside the record that teeth or gums were injured arising out of employment; Dr. Opoku's diagnoses did not list any teeth or gum condition.
Favours Defendant prevailed
No evidence supported compensability for teeth/gum injury, so the WCJ's finding of noncompensability was upheld.
From the decision · page 2With regard to injury to the teeth and gums, which the WCJ found noncompensable, applicant points to no evidence in the record (or even outside the record) that these body parts were injured arising out of and in the course of applicant's employment. Even the page attached to applicant's Petition listing diagnoses found by applicant's prior treating physician Edward Opoku, M.D. on February 13, 2018, does not list any teeth or gum condition.
The only evidence in the record for permanent disability was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore and Dr. Watkin, which the WCJ relied on.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient or why the record should be further developed, so the permanent disability rating was upheld.
From the decision · page 2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
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.
Panel QME reporting was relied upon by the WCJ for permanent disability rating; applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient.
The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore and Dr. Watkin, which the WCJ relied on.
From the decision · page 2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
Panel QME reporting was relied upon by the WCJ for permanent disability rating; applicant did not show why this evidence was insufficient.
The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore and Dr. Watkin, which the WCJ relied on.
From the decision · page 2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
Dr. Opoku's diagnoses as of February 13, 2018, did not list any teeth or gum condition.
The page attached to applicant's Petition listing diagnoses by Dr. Opoku did not list any teeth or gum condition.
From the decision · page 2With regard to injury to the teeth and gums, which the WCJ found noncompensable, applicant points to no evidence in the record (or even outside the record) that these body parts were injured arising out of and in the course of applicant's employment. Even the page attached to applicant's Petition listing diagnoses found by applicant's prior treating physician Edward Opoku, M.D. on February 13, 2018, does not list any teeth or gum condition.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc)
A decision of the WCAB must be based on admitted evidence in the record.
The panel required applicant to point to evidence in the record or attach new evidence to support a higher permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10628(a)
WCAB Rule 10628(a) requires service of any final order, decision or award on the injured employee, whether or not represented.
Panel accepted applicant's Petition as timely because it did not appear the Findings and Award was ever served directly on applicant.
From the decision · page 2WCAB] on a disputed issue after submission" Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10628, subd. (a).) We therefore accept the applicant's Petition as timely.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant pointed to no evidence in the record or outside the record that teeth or gums were injured arising out of employment; Dr. Opoku's diagnoses did not list any teeth or gum condition.
From the decision · page 2With regard to injury to the teeth and gums, which the WCJ found noncompensable, applicant points to no evidence in the record (or even outside the record) that these body parts were injured arising out of and in the course of applicant's employment. Even the page attached to applicant's Petition listing diagnoses found by applicant's prior treating physician Edward Opoku, M.D. on February 13, 2018, does not list any teeth or gum condition.
The only evidence in the record for permanent disability was the reporting of panel QMEs Dr. Moore and Dr. Watkin, which the WCJ relied on.
From the decision · page 2A "decision [of the WCAB] must be based on admitted evidence in the record." Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc). To the extent that applicant is arguing that the permanent disability awarded to him is insufficient, he must point to evidence in the record, or attach new evidence to his Petition for Reconsideration (Cal. Lab. Code, § 5903, subd. (d)) supporting a higher permanent disability rating. The only evidence in the record was the reporting of panel qualified medical evaluators neurologist Robert Moore, M.D. and orthopedist George Watkin, M.D. It appears that the WCJ relied on this evidence and applicant has not articulated a basis why this evidence was insufficient, or why the record should be further developed.
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.