Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
Medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination and history, and set forth reasoning in support of conclusions
Applied to determine that current medical record is not substantial evidence
From the decision · page 5To constitute substantial evidence “... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its
Lab. Code, § 3208.2
When disability, need for medical treatment, or death results from combined effects of two or more injuries, all questions of fact and law shall be separately determined with respect to each injury
Applied to require separate determination of each cumulative injury period
From the decision · page 8Section 3208.2 states, “When disability, need for medical treatment, or death results from the combined effects of two or more injuries, either specific, cumulative, or both, all questions of fact and law shall be separately determined with respect to each such injury, including, but not limited to, the apportionment between such injuries of
Lab. Code, §§ 5701, 5906; McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138
Appeals Board has discretionary authority to develop the record when medical record is not substantial evidence
Applied to return matter for further development of medical record
From the decision · page 8The Appeals Board has the discretionary authority to develop the record when the medical record is not substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]; see McClune v. Workers’ Comp.