ADJ13261083 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's Findings and Award of temporary disability for the period May 1, 2021 through November 2, 2021.

Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award of August 28, 2023, challenging the award of temporary disability for the period May 1, 2021 through November 2, 2021. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on the Petition, which the Board adopted and incorporated in denying the Petition.

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.

Temporary disabilityApplicant prevailedhands · psyche

The WCJ was entitled to rely on the opinion of treating psychologist Dr. Thomas Fera, who found temporary disability for the period at issue, despite conflicting opinions from QME Dr. Leine Delker. The Board adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation denying reconsideration, finding substantial evidence supported the temporary disability award.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of August 28, 2023, wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending April 29, 2020 as a claims auditor, applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to her hands and psyche causing temporary disability from May 1, 2021 through November 2, 2021.

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.

QMERejected · psychiatry

Initially found no industrial psychiatric injury or temporary disability in first report (3/22/2022), but later accepted psychiatric injury in subsequent report (2/13/2023). Did not find temporary disability in first report due to no injury finding; did not address temporary disability after changing opinion.

Dr. Delker's initial no temporary disability finding was based on no injury finding; she later accepted psychiatric injury but did not address temporary disability again.

From the decision · page 2The Applicant worked as a claims auditor for the Defendant. Due to repetitive use of the hands she developed carpal tunnel syndrome. She has other orthopedic complaints as outlined by the QME, Leine Delker Ph.D (Ex. X, pp.6-8). She also claimed internal injuries. She claimed psychiatric injury.

PTPRelied upon · psychology

Found applicant temporarily totally disabled from 4/29/2020 through return to work in early November 2021 due to psychological and physical industrial injuries.

The WCJ relied on Dr. Fera's opinion as substantial evidence of temporary disability despite conflicting QME opinions.

From the decision · page 1We will deny the defendant's Petition for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report which we hereby adopt, incorporate, and quote below. Regardless of any lack of clarity regarding the opinions of qualified medical evaluator psychologist Leine Delker, Ph.D. on the issue of temporary disability, the WCJ was entitled to rely upon the opinion of treating psychologist Thomas Fera, Ph.D., who found temporary disability for the dates at issue. (July 16, 2022 report at p. 12.) The relevant and considered opinion of one physician, though inconsistent with other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence. (Le Vesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 639 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) The WCJ is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on those deemed most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476, 479 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].) Here, even to the extent

ADJ13261083 · October 6, 2023

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