ADJ12973629 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the January 4, 2024 Findings and Order, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's January 4, 2024 Findings and Order denying injury AOE/COE and ordered applicant to take nothing; the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings.

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/COERemandedeyes · neck · bilateral shoulders · hands · wrists · lower back · bilateral knees · bilateral feet · psyche · respiratory system

The WCAB found inconsistencies in applicant's history, job duties, and medical reports, concluding the record lacked substantial evidence to support the WCJ's denial of injury AOE/COE, warranting further development of the record.

From the decision · page 6Having reviewed the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that there are several inconsistencies in the information provided to the various doctors whose reports were admitted into evidence. Also, the job duties described by the doctors are quite inconsistent with those identified in the Usual and Customary Job Description. (Def. Exh. F.)2 Based thereon, we cannot determine the accuracy of the doctors' reports that were admitted into evidence, and in turn the reports are not substantial evidence.

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 · chiropractic

Described applicant's job duties involving heavy lifting, bending, twisting, and physical labor.

From the decision · page 2He indicates that his job duties included palletizing, lifting boxes and warehouse duties. He would lift water bottles each weight from 25 to 50 pounds from conveyor belt and placed on to the floor on the palate and build it up to 70 boxes- bottle case per palate and would palatalize 10-12 palate. ln addition, he would lift 70 to 100 of 30-50 pound palates [sic] and carry to locations. He always walks around, being on his feet, reaching down to floor levels, forward or reach at shoulder or above levels while lifting, pulling pushing with light gripping. He requires bending, turning, twisting with neck and back. (App. Exh. 22, Mohammad Reza Rockny Mojabe, D.C., March 4, 2020, p. 1.)

QMERelied upon · chiropractic

Concluded applicant did not suffer an industrial injury to multiple body parts; noted inconsistencies in applicant's reported symptoms and observed behavior.

The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Rapoff's observations of inconsistencies in applicant's complaints and behavior significant in assessing credibility and injury causation.

From the decision · page 3In my opinion, with reasonable medical probability, the applicant did not suffer an industrial injury either specific or cumulative - while employed with Corporate Packing Inc. to his 1) neck, 2) left shoulder, 3) right shoulder, 4) left arm, 5) right arm, 6) left wrist, 7) right wrist, 8) low back, 9) left knee, 10) right knee, 11) left ankle 12) right ankle. (Def. Exh. C, p. 71; see also Def. Exh. A, pp. 78 § 81.)

PTPRelied upon

Found applicant had 21% whole person impairment due to cumulative injury; disagreed with QME that no industrial injury occurred.

Dr. Furman's opinion was considered substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE, contrasting with Dr. Rapoff's opinion.

From the decision · page 4have reached maximum medical improvement. He stated applicant's "whole person impairment rating is 21%" and that it was "a direct result of the cumulative injury." (App. Exh. 14, pp. 16 - 18.)

ADJ12973629 · March 11, 2024

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