ADJ11942492 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

Defendant filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order dated August 4, 2022, which found injury AOE/COE and rejected statute of limitations, post-termination, and late claim defenses.

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 prevailedneck · back

Substantial medical evidence, including the panel QME's final opinion and applicant's job duties, established cumulative trauma injury AOE/COE to neck and back.

From the decision · page 10Dr. La's conclusion on causation appears reasonable, given that the applicant frequently lifted heavy aerospace materials and was nearly always working at his desk monitor. There is substantial medical evidence to establish injury based on the applicant's job duties, which included lifting heavy parts, working at a desk, and looking at a computer monitor for a prolonged time. Based on the testimony, as well as the medical reports and deposition testimony of Dr. La, the Court finds that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his neck and low back arising out of and in the course of employment.

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.

QMERelied upon

Initially found no substantial medical evidence for industrial causation, but after reviewing job duties and records, concluded applicant's work caused cumulative trauma injury to neck and back.

Panel QME's final opinion credited as substantial evidence for AOE/COE finding.

From the decision · page 10Dr. La's conclusion on causation appears reasonable, given that the applicant frequently lifted heavy aerospace materials and was nearly always working at his desk monitor. There is substantial medical evidence to establish injury based on the applicant's job duties, which included lifting heavy parts, working at a desk, and looking at a computer monitor for a prolonged time. Based on the testimony, as well as the medical reports and deposition testimony of Dr. La, the Court finds that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his neck and low back arising out of and in the course of employment.

PTPRelied upon

Did not give applicant any work restrictions other than modifying how he looked at his screen.

PTP's lack of restrictions supported finding of no disability before termination.

From the decision · page 12In addition to knowledge, to establish a cumulative trauma injury under Labor Code § 5412, there must be evidence of a disability. Dr. O'Hara did not give the applicant any work restrictions other than modifying how he looked at his screen (MOH/SOE 11: 10 § 12). The manager for supply chain engineering, Ray Mastropa, testified that the applicant never missed time from work because of pain or injury (MOH/SOE 16: 8). There is no evidence the applicant lost time from work or that he had any permanent work restrictions or disability before the employment termination. For statute of limitations purposes, the date of injury occurred when the applicant consulted his attorney, and the panel QME examined him and indicated he sustained a cumulative trauma injury.

ADJ11942492 · October 6, 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