What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration.
Defendant filed a timely verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on March 20, 2025, which was denied by the WCAB panel decision dated June 16, 2025.
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's finding of injury AOE/COE was supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Haghighinia, whose opinion was found credible and persuasive over the contrary opinion of Dr. Kim, which was rejected as not credible due to discounting applicant's history and complaints.
From the decision · page 6This matter proceeded to trial on the issue of AOE/COE only, with all other issues bifurcated and deferred by Order of the Court. The matter was submitted on the documentary record - no testimony was received. Lien claimants relied on the reporting1 of Dr. Omid Haghighinia, D.C to establish injury AOE/COE. Defendant instead relied on the PQME reports2 of Dr. David Kim, M.D., which found no injury. The Court found the reporting of Dr. Haghighinia to be more persuasive and issued findings of injury AOE/COE on March 20, 2025. These were served by mail on March 25, 2025.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Haghighinia's reports included a detailed history from the applicant, review of medical records, and a conclusion on compensability supported accordingly.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This opinion was found to constitute substantial medical evidence supporting injury AOE/COE and was credited by the WCJ and the Board.
Dr. Kim discounted the applicant's history and complaints, and dismissed the connection between objective findings and work for Third Cancun Juice.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Court found Dr. Kim's opinion not credible and rejected it, favoring the applicant's position on injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 8In contrast, based upon the review of Dr. Kim's reporting, it was clear to the Court that Dr. Kim seemed to have discounted the applicant's history of injury, primarily because applicant had subsequent employment following his departure from Third Cancun Juice. Despite that applicant worked under physically laborious conditions for more than 5 years and claimed to have been ignored by management despite multiple attempted reports of injury, these allegations are completely absent from Dr. Kim's analysis. Instead, despite objective findings on exam, Dr. Kim claimed not to see any potential connection between those findings and applicant's work for Third Cancun Juice.
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.
Found that within reasonable medical probability, the complaints were related to applicant's employment at Third Cancun Juice, constituting a continuous trauma injury in the course and scope of employment.
The reports include a detailed history from the applicant, review of medical records, and a conclusion on compensability supported accordingly. The WCJ found this opinion persuasive and substantial evidence.
Found no support that the patient's complaints were related to his job duties at Third Cancun Juice, discounting applicant's history and complaints, and was rejected as not credible.
Dr. Kim discounted the applicant's history of injury and subsequent employment, and dismissed the connection between objective findings and work for Third Cancun Juice. The Court rejected this opinion as not credible.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922
A medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and must set forth reasoning in support of conclusions.
The WCJ found Dr. Haghighinia's opinion met these criteria and was substantial evidence, while Dr. Kim's was rejected as speculative and not credible.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 requires the Appeals Board to act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board.
The Board timely acted on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period as required by this statute.
From the decision · page 2Under Labor Code section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Specifically, in Case Events, under Event Description is the phrase "Sent to Recon" and under Additional Information is the phrase "The case is sent to the Recon board."
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The detailed history and findings of Dr. Haghighinia were credited over Dr. Kim's contrary opinion, which dismissed applicant's history and complaints.
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.