Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, 5705; South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291; Lab. Code, 3600; Lab. Code, 3202.5
Burden of proof rests on the party holding the affirmative; preponderance of evidence standard for causation.
Applicant must show employment was a contributing cause of injury by preponderance of evidence.
From the decision · page 5II.
Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that the reporting of Dr.
Stoller, which was relied upon by the WCJ in the making of her decision, does not constitute
substantial medical evidence on the issue of injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine.
It is well established that the burden of proof rests upon the party holding the affirmative
of the issue. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) As such, when an employee claims injury AOE/COE, it is the
employee, or the lien claimant who steps in the shoes of the employee, who carries the burden of
proof in establishing industrial causation and they must show that the employment was a
contributing cause. (South Coast Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61
Cal.4th 291, 297- 298, 302; § 5705; 3600.) Pursuant to section 3202.5, the evidentiary burden of
proof is to be met by a preponderance of the evidence. However, "[t]hat burden manifestly does
not require the applicant to prove causation by scientific certainty." (Rosas v. Worker's Comp.
Appeals Bd.
Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159
Substantial medical evidence requires reasonable, credible, and solid value evidence supporting causation.
Medical opinion must be based on accurate facts and reasoning to be substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 5(1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1692, 1701 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 313].)
Further, substantial medical evidence is used to establish industrial causation. "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.) Pursuant to E.L. Yeager
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases
1687], "[a] medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane,
Lab. Code, 4660.1; Lab. Code, 4660; Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808; Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213; Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence; combined values chart (CVC) is rebuttable.
Applicant may rebut CVC by showing ADLs impacted and non-overlapping or amplifying effects.
From the decision · page 6III.
Defendant further contends that applicant failed to satisfy the requirements outlined under
Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees. (Petition, p. 4.)
Pursuant to section 4660.1, the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima
facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274-1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases
624].) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury
are "generally" combined using the CVC, which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1-
10.)Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not
precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee's whole person
impairment so long as the physician's opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides.