What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; Findings of Fact and Order by WCJ that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE to cervical spine or bilateral knees affirmed.
Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued by the WCJ on April 5, 2021, denied by the WCAB panel on June 18, 2021.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold February 16, 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.
Applicant did not meet her burden of proof to show injury AOE/COE; defendant's denial, QME Dr. Brox's report and deposition were substantial evidence supporting no injury; applicant submitted no contradictory medical evidence or testimony.
From the decision · page 6Cal.App.4th 298, 313 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 488]; Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1212-1213 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 289]; Bolanos v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014 W/D) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1531.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this matter the issue submitted for decision was injury AOE/COE. The evidence submitted was defendant's denial of applicant's claim, Dr. Brox's report and the transcript of his deposition. (Exhs. AA, BB, and CC.) Applicant submitted no testimony or medical evidence that was inconsistent with the opinions stated by Dr. Brox. Nor did applicant object to proceeding to trial on the issue of injury AOE/COE. (MOH/SOE, October 29, 2020; MOH/SOE, March 17, 2021.) It was not defendant's burden to prove that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE, it was applicant's burden to prove that she did. Applicant did not meet her burden of proof.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME Dr. Brox found no objective evidence of injury and a normal physical examination.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This was substantial evidence supporting the denial of injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 5Further, applicant contends that Dr. Brox "did not have an understanding of the day-to-day job duties of a Correctional Officer and the physical abuse their bodies must endure" and "[b]ecause of his apparent lack of understanding cumulative trauma industrial injuries" his opinions are not substantial evidence. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence in support of applicant's contention, it is more important to note that after examining applicant's cervical spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists/hands, lumbar spine, hips, knees, ankles and feet, and reviewing the medical record, including x-rays and MRIs (Joint Exh. BB, pp. 17-19), Dr. Brox concluded that applicant had "a normal physical examination" and that there was no objective evidence of an injury. (Joint Exc. C, pp. 20 § 21.) Thus, for the sake of argument, even if applicant was correct that Dr. Brox was not aware of the physical demands of applicant's employment, the fact that he found applicant had a normal examination and that there was no objective evidence of injury is substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain the cumulative injury as claimed.
Applicant submitted no contradictory medical evidence or testimony at trial.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of contradictory evidence meant applicant did not meet burden of proof.
From the decision · page 6Cal.App.4th 298, 313 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 488]; Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1212-1213 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 289]; Bolanos v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014 W/D) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1531.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this matter the issue submitted for decision was injury AOE/COE. The evidence submitted was defendant's denial of applicant's claim, Dr. Brox's report and the transcript of his deposition. (Exhs. AA, BB, and CC.) Applicant submitted no testimony or medical evidence that was inconsistent with the opinions stated by Dr. Brox. Nor did applicant object to proceeding to trial on the issue of injury AOE/COE. (MOH/SOE, October 29, 2020; MOH/SOE, March 17, 2021.) It was not defendant's burden to prove that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE, it was applicant's burden to prove that she did. Applicant did not meet her burden of proof.
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.
No objective evidence of injury to cervical spine or bilateral knees; normal physical examination; no basis for cumulative industrial trauma as a result of work as correctional officer.
Dr. Brox's report and deposition provided substantial evidence that applicant did not sustain injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 1Applicant claimed injury to her cervical spine and bi-lateral knees while employed by defendant as a correctional officer during the period from February 15, 1999, through August 31, 2018. Defendant denied the injury claim. (Joint Exh. AA, Notice of Denial, October 26, 2018.) QME Dr. Brox evaluated applicant on February 14, 2019. Dr. Brox performed an orthopedic physical examination of applicant's cervical spine, shoulders, elbows, wrists/hands, lumbar spine,
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5705, 3202.5, 3600(a); South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291
Burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative of the issue; employee must prove injury AOE/COE by preponderance of evidence.
Applicant did not meet burden of proof to show injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 5Finally, it is well established that the burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative of the issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Lantz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant submitted no testimony or medical evidence inconsistent with Dr. Brox's opinions; no contradictory evidence at trial.
From the decision · page 6Cal.App.4th 298, 313 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 488]; Hand Rehabilitation Center v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Obernier) (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1212-1213 [60 Cal.Comp.Cases 289]; Bolanos v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014 W/D) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1531.) The employee bears the burden of proving injury AOE/COE by a preponderance of the evidence. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297§ 298 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this matter the issue submitted for decision was injury AOE/COE. The evidence submitted was defendant's denial of applicant's claim, Dr. Brox's report and the transcript of his deposition. (Exhs. AA, BB, and CC.) Applicant submitted no testimony or medical evidence that was inconsistent with the opinions stated by Dr. Brox. Nor did applicant object to proceeding to trial on the issue of injury AOE/COE. (MOH/SOE, October 29, 2020; MOH/SOE, March 17, 2021.) It was not defendant's burden to prove that applicant did not sustain an injury AOE/COE, it was applicant's burden to prove that she did. Applicant did not meet her burden of proof.
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.