Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566]
Decisions must be supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.
The WCAB referenced the substantial evidence standard as relevant to its review of the WCJ's decision and the sufficiency of Dr. Michaels' reporting.
From the decision · page 2It is well established that decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial
evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d
274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35
Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35
Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "The term `substantial evidence' means evidence which, if true, has
probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion...It must be reasonable in
nature, credible, and of solid value." (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and
citations omitted.)
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93]
Medical evidence is required for compensability; medical opinions must be based on reasonable medical probability, adequate examination and history, and not be speculative.
The WCAB cited these standards in discussing the requirements for medical evidence and the evaluation of Dr. Michaels' reporting.
From the decision · page 2Medical evidence is required if there is an issue regarding the compensability of the claim.
(Lab. Code, § 4060(c)(d), 4061(i), 4062.3(l).) A medical opinion must be framed in terms of
reasonable medical probability, it must be based on an adequate examination and history, it must
not be speculative, and it must set forth reasoning to support the expert conclusions reached. (E.L.
Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928
[71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621
(Appeals Bd. en banc).) "Medical reports and opinions are not substantial evidence if they are
known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical
histories and examinations, or on incorrect legal theories. Medical opinion also fails to support
the Board's findings if it is based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess." (Hegglin v.
Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93].) Defendant
holds the burden of proof on apportionment of permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 5705; see also
Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 613.)
Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc); Lab. Code, § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10787
The WCJ and Appeals Board must ensure the record is complete and decisions must clearly state reasons and evidence relied on.
The WCAB referenced these requirements in evaluating whether the WCJ's analysis and record were sufficient.
From the decision · page 2Further, decisions of the Appeals Board "must be based on admitted evidence in the
record." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476