ADJ12677607 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant seeking review of Findings and Order dated 03/26/2021

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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedcervical spine · left shoulder · left elbow · left wrist

The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and Dr. Newman's medical reports substantial and more persuasive than Dr. Stearns' reports, establishing compensable industrial cumulative trauma injury.

From the decision · page 4The court reviewed the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted by the parties and found applicant's testimony credible. The court also found the medical reports of Dr. Newman to be substantial medical evidence on the issue of injury AOE/COE and more persuasive than those of Dr. Stearns. Petitioner argues that no other medical provider in over a year of medical treatment, other than Dr. Newman, had come up with the diagnosis of cumulative trauma injury and asserts that Dr. Wedemeyer found no cumulative trauma injury in any of his treatment

The facts that decided it

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

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.

PTPRelied upon

Diagnosed industrial cumulative trauma cervical spine strain injury contributing to progression of cervical spondylosis and causing symptoms; found work-related cumulative trauma injury and no apportionment to pre-existing condition.

Reports found substantial medical evidence and more persuasive than Dr. Stearns' reports; diagnosis supported by review of medical history, MRI, and comprehensive evaluation.

From the decision · page 5Petitioner also argues that "Without new medical evidence, Dr. Newman's November 12, 2020 (sic) expounds a novel theory that the applicant's pre-existing neck issues were `lit up' by a cumulative trauma at IKEA." On page 8 of Dr. Newman's 6/30/2020 and 11/12/2020 reports under diagnostic impression he states, "work-related cumulative trauma cervical spine strain injury in association with cervical spondylosis and small disc-osteophyte complexes C-3 though C-6 and DDD C-3 through C-6." (emphasis added). This was not a novel theory nor one not based on the existing medical evidence. Dr. Newman reviewed the applicant's current and past work and medical history, the medical records, the MRI reports, and performed a comprehensive medical evaluation to support his diagnosis of industrial cumulative trauma. On page 13 of his November 12, 2020 report, Dr. Newman stated:

QMERejected

Found cervical spondylosis and left-sided cervical radiculitis likely unrelated to work; no evidence of acute or cumulative work injury; cervical spondylosis is degenerative and not caused by forklift work, though symptoms may be aggravated by work.

Reports found less persuasive than Dr. Newman's; opinion based on incorrect legal theory that injury cannot be industrial if caused by underlying disease process.

From the decision · page 6I have been asked to address the issue of causation. Based on the history given to me by Mister the applicant, the records reviewed by me, and my examination, with reasonable medical probability I find no evidence of acute or cumulative work injury. Cervical spondylosis is a naturally occurring degenerative process in the absence of significant cervical trauma such as fracture, dislocation, or severe sprain. Driving a forklift at work does not cause cervical spondylosis even though driving a forklift at work may cause existing cervical spondylosis to be symptomatic. Mister the applicant undoubtedly had arthritis in his neck when he began working at IKEA in December 2016 because the cervical spondylosis evident on his cervical MRI requires many years to develop - much more than the 19 months he worked at IKEA.

ADJ12677607 · May 27, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page