ADJ12405860 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted in part to correct clerical errors; otherwise denied; original findings and awards affirmed with amendments.

Petitions for reconsideration filed by both applicant and defendant seeking review of the October 23, 2024 Joint Findings and Awards; defendant seeks clerical corrections, applicant challenges findings and benefits.

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 prevailedbilateral shoulders · bilateral wrists · carpal tunnel syndrome · psyche

The WCJ found injury to bilateral shoulders, wrists, carpal tunnel syndrome, and psyche on January 15, 2010, supported by QME Dr. Campbell and Dr. Shah's reports.

From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Joint Findings and Awards (F&A), in which the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ12405860, that applicant, while employed on January 9, 2008 by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a corrections office sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right shoulder. The WCJ further found in ADJ7255430, that applicant, while similarly employed from July 7, 1998 to January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her psyche, but did not sustain injury to her neck, low back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, and/or in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The WCJ further found in ADJ7241349 that applicant, while similarly employed on January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her bilateral shoulder, wrists, and in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and to the psyche.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

WCJ found injury to right shoulder on January 9, 2008, supported by QME Dr. Campbell's report.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported applicant's claim for compensable injury and PD award.

From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Joint Findings and Awards (F&A), in which the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ12405860, that applicant, while employed on January 9, 2008 by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a corrections office sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right shoulder. The WCJ further found in ADJ7255430, that applicant, while similarly employed from July 7, 1998 to January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her psyche, but did not sustain injury to her neck, low back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, and/or in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The WCJ further found in ADJ7241349 that applicant, while similarly employed on January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her bilateral shoulder, wrists, and in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and to the psyche.

WCJ found injury to bilateral shoulders, wrists, carpal tunnel syndrome, and psyche on January 15, 2010, supported by QME Dr. Campbell and Dr. Shah's reports.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported applicant's claim for compensable injury and PD award.

From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Joint Findings and Awards (F&A), in which the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ12405860, that applicant, while employed on January 9, 2008 by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a corrections office sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right shoulder. The WCJ further found in ADJ7255430, that applicant, while similarly employed from July 7, 1998 to January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her psyche, but did not sustain injury to her neck, low back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, and/or in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The WCJ further found in ADJ7241349 that applicant, while similarly employed on January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her bilateral shoulder, wrists, and in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and to the psyche.

WCJ found TTD overpayment for August 9, 2011 through September 7, 2011, and awarded credit against PD.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Supported defendant's claim for credit against PD for TTD overpayment.

WCJ relied on substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Campbell and Dr. Shah to rate PD at 12% for 2008 injury and 61% for 2010 injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported applicant's entitlement to permanent disability benefits.

From the decision · page 33PERMANENT DISABILITY RATINGS Having found the opinions of both the orthopedic QME Dr. Campbell and the psychiatric QME Dr. Shah to be substantial medical evidence, with the significant exception of Dr. Shah's conclusory and non-substantial Kite opinion, I rate and find Applicant's permanent disability as follows.

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 · orthopedic

Provided substantial medical evidence supporting injury to right shoulder in 2008 and bilateral shoulders and wrists in 2010, with need for further medical treatment.

QMERelied upon · psychiatric

Provided substantial medical evidence supporting injury to psyche with 10% apportionment to preexisting anxiety rejected; rated psychiatric PD and causation between injuries.

From the decision · page 33With respect to the psyche claim, find that Dr. Shah's reporting is more persuasive that that of Dr. Raffle and constitutes substantial medical evidence with respect to predominant causation and current GAF. However, I find that his opinion of 10% apportionment to preexisting anxiety on page 84 of his August 21, 2018 report (Joint 104, Report of 8/21/18) is conclusory and not sufficiently explained to constitute substantial medical evidence. He also in his supplemental report leaves it unclear when discussing causation as between the 3 dates of injury as to whether this was after the 10% apportionment or not. In any event, I do not find Dr. Shah's non-industrial apportionment opinion to be substantial medical evidence and will not apply any non-industrial apportionment in rating his reports. However, I further find that Dr. Shah's nominal Kite opinion in his report of August 21, 1018 at p.

AMERelied upon · orthopedic

Provided sole medical-legal reporting on bilateral wrists injury and P&S status as of August 2011, relied upon by WCJ despite defendant's challenge.

Defendant challenged reliance on Dr. Murphy's report for bilateral wrists injury, but WCJ found it persuasive and allowed conforming pleadings to proof.

From the decision · page 4Defendant contends that following Dr. Murphy's unavailability, the parties selected Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) William Campbell, D.O., who did not address the bilateral wrists. (Defendant's Petition, at p. 8:21.) Defendant therefore concludes the WCJ erred in basing his findings of fact with respect to the bilateral wrists on the reporting of prior AME Dr. Murphy. However, we observe that to the extent the reporting of Dr. Campbell is silent as to the claimed body parts of the bilateral wrists, the reporting of Dr. Murphy is the sole medical-legal reporting in the evidentiary record that adequately addresses the identified industrial injury to these body parts. Moreover, the WCJ is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on that which he deems most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].) We further observe that insofar as defendant contends that no body parts were placed in issue in ADJ7241349, WCAB Rule 10517 (Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10517) allows the WCJ to conform the pleadings to proof. Here, the WCJ reasonably determined that based on the AME reporting of Dr. Murphy, applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral wrists in the form of carpal tunnel syndrome and that future medical care should be made available to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 4662

Applied to determine compensability of injuries arising out of and in the course of employment.

From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the October 23, 2024 Joint Findings and Awards (F&A), in which the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found in Case No. ADJ12405860, that applicant, while employed on January 9, 2008 by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as a corrections office sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right shoulder. The WCJ further found in ADJ7255430, that applicant, while similarly employed from July 7, 1998 to January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her psyche, but did not sustain injury to her neck, low back, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, and/or in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The WCJ further found in ADJ7241349 that applicant, while similarly employed on January 15, 2010, sustained industrial injury to her bilateral shoulder, wrists, and in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and to the psyche.

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 4650

Applied to determine entitlement and credit for TTD overpayment.

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 4660

Applied in rating permanent disability and apportionment.

From the decision · page 33PERMANENT DISABILITY RATINGS Having found the opinions of both the orthopedic QME Dr. Campbell and the psychiatric QME Dr. Shah to be substantial medical evidence, with the significant exception of Dr. Shah's conclusory and non-substantial Kite opinion, I rate and find Applicant's permanent disability as follows.

CA-WCAB en banc

Almaraz/Guzman standard

Applied in rating permanent disability and apportionment.

From the decision · page 33PERMANENT DISABILITY RATINGS Having found the opinions of both the orthopedic QME Dr. Campbell and the psychiatric QME Dr. Shah to be substantial medical evidence, with the significant exception of Dr. Shah's conclusory and non-substantial Kite opinion, I rate and find Applicant's permanent disability as follows.

ADJ12405860 · May 6, 2025

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