What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant contesting Findings and Order dated 9/17/2021, served 9/22/2021, denied by WCAB panel on 12/10/2021.
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.
The WCJ and WCAB panel found that the applicant did not meet her burden of proof to establish injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the QME reports and the applicant's failure to appear at trial.
From the decision · page 4Leisure Yu, M.D., prepared a QME report dated 12/1/2020 (Exhibit A). The applicant reported that she had complaints to her right ankle and right foot. She denied any prior right ankle and right foot injuries. She stated that she was injured when she was about to help a customer and as she stood up from her chair and turned, she twisted her right foot. The injury was reported and she was referred for treatment. The review of records showed right ankle sprain and right foot sprain on 8/15/2010 and 3/25/2012. On 4/9/2014, she was seen for right foot pain with x-rays on 5/21/2014 showing hallux valgus with pes planus. On 10/27/2015, she was seen for bilateral foot pain. Dr. Yu concluded that the applicant did not sustain work related injuries to the right ankle or right foot. The applicant has a history of chronic recurrent right and left ankle and foot sprain, strain and pain. The history of right ankle and foot strain dates back to 8/15/2010. Dr. Yu questions the veracity of the applicant's history statements.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME Dr. Leisure Yu concluded applicant did not sustain work related injuries to right ankle or foot, attributing complaints to chronic recurrent conditions.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This medical opinion was the basis for the WCJ and WCAB panel's finding that the applicant did not meet burden of proof for injury arising out of employment.
From the decision · page 4Leisure Yu, M.D., prepared a QME report dated 12/1/2020 (Exhibit A). The applicant reported that she had complaints to her right ankle and right foot. She denied any prior right ankle and right foot injuries. She stated that she was injured when she was about to help a customer and as she stood up from her chair and turned, she twisted her right foot. The injury was reported and she was referred for treatment. The review of records showed right ankle sprain and right foot sprain on 8/15/2010 and 3/25/2012. On 4/9/2014, she was seen for right foot pain with x-rays on 5/21/2014 showing hallux valgus with pes planus. On 10/27/2015, she was seen for bilateral foot pain. Dr. Yu concluded that the applicant did not sustain work related injuries to the right ankle or right foot. The applicant has a history of chronic recurrent right and left ankle and foot sprain, strain and pain. The history of right ankle and foot strain dates back to 8/15/2010. Dr. Yu questions the veracity of the applicant's history statements.
Applicant failed to appear at two scheduled trials but her attorney was present; no denial of due process found.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Applicant's absence and counsel presence supported the panel's conclusion that due process was not denied, reinforcing the denial of reconsideration.
From the decision · page 5The finding that that the applicant did not sustain an injury on 10/6/2019 arising out of and in the course of employment was based on the QME reports by Dr. Yu. The applicant was given an opportunity to testify at the trial, but she did not appear on 2 occasions. The applicant's attorney was present at the trial. There is no evidence that the applicant was denied due process.
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.
Applicant did not sustain work related injuries to the right ankle or right foot; current complaints are due to chronic recurrent ankle strain/sprain.
Based on medical records and history, applicant's complaints are not work related but due to pre-existing chronic conditions.
From the decision · page 4Leisure Yu, M.D., prepared a QME report dated 12/1/2020 (Exhibit A). The applicant reported that she had complaints to her right ankle and right foot. She denied any prior right ankle and right foot injuries. She stated that she was injured when she was about to help a customer and as she stood up from her chair and turned, she twisted her right foot. The injury was reported and she was referred for treatment. The review of records showed right ankle sprain and right foot sprain on 8/15/2010 and 3/25/2012. On 4/9/2014, she was seen for right foot pain with x-rays on 5/21/2014 showing hallux valgus with pes planus. On 10/27/2015, she was seen for bilateral foot pain. Dr. Yu concluded that the applicant did not sustain work related injuries to the right ankle or right foot. The applicant has a history of chronic recurrent right and left ankle and foot sprain, strain and pain. The history of right ankle and foot strain dates back to 8/15/2010. Dr. Yu questions the veracity of the applicant's history statements.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302; Lab. Code, 3202.5, 3600(a)
The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
The WCJ and WCAB panel applied this standard to find the applicant did not meet her burden of proof.
From the decision · page 1The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) In this case, we agree with the WCJ that applicant did not meet her burden of proof.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant did not appear at two scheduled trials, but her attorney was present; no denial of due process found.
From the decision · page 5The finding that that the applicant did not sustain an injury on 10/6/2019 arising out of and in the course of employment was based on the QME reports by Dr. Yu. The applicant was given an opportunity to testify at the trial, but she did not appear on 2 occasions. The applicant's attorney was present at the trial. There is no evidence that the applicant was denied due process.
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.