ADJ14972494 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order affirmed.

Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order issued on February 3, 2026, challenging the finding of industrial injury to applicant's eyes/vision. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial of 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.

AOE/COEApplicant prevailedeyes · vision

The WCJ's finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision is supported by substantial medical evidence including the ophthalmology QME Dr. Sami's opinion, the internal medicine AME Dr. Grodan's deferral to Dr. Sami, credible applicant testimony, and contemporaneous treating records. The Report on Reconsideration supplies the reasoning required under Labor Code section 5313, curing any deficiency in the original Opinion on Decision.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the February 3, 2026 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant as a chief negotiator for the nurses' union, from February 4, 2005 to July 13, 2021, applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to her "internal" and eyes/vision, and claimed injury to various parts.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Grodan, the internal medicine AME, expressly deferred to Dr. Sami, the ophthalmology QME, on the ocular diagnosis and causation issue.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This deferral allowed the Board to rely on Dr. Sami's substantial medical opinion for the finding of industrial injury to eyes/vision.

From the decision · page 3We note by way of clarification that although the opinions of an AME are ordinarily followed (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114]), in this case following AME Dr. Grodan's opinions necessarily means relying upon his express deferral to an ophthalmologist, and specifically Dr. Sami, on the issue of whether there was injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the eyes and vision. Dr. Grodan did not retract or withdraw his deferral, even when he expressed opinions about the effect of hypertension on arteries as opposed to veins.

Dr. Sami, the ophthalmology QME, provided a detailed, reasoned opinion that industrial hypertension contributed to the retinal vascular occlusion causing eye injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

His expert opinion was the primary medical evidence supporting the finding of industrial injury to eyes/vision.

From the decision · page 3We also note that while Dr. Sami in turn based his opinion on Dr. Grodan's opinion on the issue of whether applicant had industrial hypertension, Dr. Sami did not defer to Dr. Grodan on the issue of how that condition in turn affected applicant's eye condition. Dr. Sami, as the expert in ophthalmology to whom Dr. Grodan had deferred, did not recognize any significant distinction between veins and arteries in causing retinal occlusion.

Applicant's credible testimony and contemporaneous treating records documented the temporal relationship between work stress, hypertension, and vision loss.

Favours Applicant prevailed

These non-medical-legal evidentiary factors corroborated the medical opinions and supported the finding of industrial injury.

From the decision · page 14Applicant testified credibly regarding the onset of her vision symptoms, their temporal relationship to escalating work stress, and their persistence. (Minutes of Hearing, 11/6/2025, at pp. 4§ 6.) The undersigned observed Applicant's testimony and evaluated her demeanor. That credibility determination is entitled to great weight. (See Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319.) Applicant's account is corroborated by the treating records of Dr. Bahadori and Providence (Ex. Appl. 4; Ex. Appl. 5), which document, in real time, the convergence of uncontrolled hypertension, documented work stress, and right-eye central retinal vein occlusion with ongoing vision loss requiring intravitreal injections and specialty retina care. This contemporaneous documentation, coupled with the medical-legal opinions of Drs. Sami and Grodan, places the finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision squarely within the substantial evidence standard. C. Defendant's Remaining Arguments Are Unpersuasive.

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.

QMERelied upon · ophthalmology

Dr. Sami opined that the industrial apportionment for hypertension applies to the eye impairment and that applicant sustained injury to eyes/vision arising out of and in the course of employment. He based his opinion on his own examination, review of medical records, and recognized hypertension as a risk factor for retinal vascular occlusion.

Dr. Sami is the ophthalmology specialist to whom the internal medicine AME deferred on ocular diagnosis and causation. His opinion was found substantial and supported the finding of industrial injury to eyes/vision.

From the decision · page 3We also note that while Dr. Sami in turn based his opinion on Dr. Grodan's opinion on the issue of whether applicant had industrial hypertension, Dr. Sami did not defer to Dr. Grodan on the issue of how that condition in turn affected applicant's eye condition. Dr. Sami, as the expert in ophthalmology to whom Dr. Grodan had deferred, did not recognize any significant distinction between veins and arteries in causing retinal occlusion.

AMERelied upon · internal medicine

Dr. Grodan found 90% industrial causation for applicant's systemic hypertension and deferred to Dr. Sami on the ocular diagnosis and causation. He noted that systemic arterial hypertension does not directly cause retinal vein occlusion but did not exclude other medical pathways and consistently supported industrial causation of hypertension.

Dr. Grodan's deferral to Dr. Sami on ocular causation was accepted, and his opinion on industrial aggravation of hypertension was credited. His testimony and reports supported the finding of industrial injury to eyes/vision when combined with Dr. Sami's opinion.

From the decision · page 3We note by way of clarification that although the opinions of an AME are ordinarily followed (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114]), in this case following AME Dr. Grodan's opinions necessarily means relying upon his express deferral to an ophthalmologist, and specifically Dr. Sami, on the issue of whether there was injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the eyes and vision. Dr. Grodan did not retract or withdraw his deferral, even when he expressed opinions about the effect of hypertension on arteries as opposed to veins.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

McAllister v. WCAB (1968) 33 CCC 660; Rosas v. WCAB (1993) 58 CCC 313; E.L. Yeager Construction v. WCAB (Gatten) (2006) 71 CCC 1687; Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372

A medical opinion constitutes substantial evidence when based on adequate history, examination, reasoning, and framed in terms of reasonable medical probability.

Dr. Sami's opinion satisfied these requirements and was substantial evidence supporting industrial injury to eyes/vision.

From the decision · page 11Defendant argues that this statement is "conclusory" and that Dr. Sami's earlier use of the phrase "risk factor" renders his reporting insubstantial. That argument misreads the reports and misapplies the substantial-evidence standard. A medical opinion constitutes substantial evidence when it is based upon an adequate history and examination, sets forth reasoning in support of its conclusions, and is framed in terms of reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. WCAB (1968) 33 CCC 660; Rosas v. WCAB (1993) 58 CCC 313; E.L. Yeager Construction v. WCAB (Gatten) (2006) 71 CCC 1687, 1691.; Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378.) Dr. Sami's reporting satisfies each of these requirements. He personally examined Applicant. (Ex. Appl. 3, at p. 3.) He reviewed 760 pages of records. (Id. at p. 9.) He identified objective findings. (Id. at p. 3.) He diagnosed a specific condition. (Id. at pp. 3, 5.) He identified hypertension as a medically recognized risk factor for the development of that condition (Ex. Appl. 1, at p. 6), a proposition that is well-established in the ophthalmologic literature and is not seriously disputed

Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc)

Labor Code section 5313 requires the Appeals Board to provide reasoning for its decisions, but a Report on Reconsideration can supply reasoning omitted in the original Opinion on Decision.

The Report on Reconsideration supplied the reasoning required under Labor Code section 5313, curing any deficiency in the original Opinion on Decision.

From the decision · page 10The undersigned acknowledges that the Opinion on Decision stated the conclusion in summary form. However, well-established Appeals Board practice contemplates that a Report and Recommendation on reconsideration is the appropriate vehicle to elaborate the trial judge's reasoning where the original opinion was concise. Haywood v. WCAB (1996) 61 CCC 509 (writ denied); City of Maywood v. WCAB (Smith) (1991) 56 CCC 704 (writ denied); Boomsliter v. Continental Ins. Co. (1999) 27 CWCR 192 (panel decision); Smales v. WCAB (1980) 45 CCC 1026 (writ denied); Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian v. WCAB (Giannini) (1997) 62 CCC 1720 (writ denied); Paula Insurance Co. v. WCAB (Parham, Bracamontes) (1993) 58 CCC 273 (writ denied).

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's credible testimony regarding onset and persistence of vision symptoms and their temporal relationship to work stress

From the decision · page 14Applicant testified credibly regarding the onset of her vision symptoms, their temporal relationship to escalating work stress, and their persistence. (Minutes of Hearing, 11/6/2025, at pp. 4§ 6.) The undersigned observed Applicant's testimony and evaluated her demeanor. That credibility determination is entitled to great weight. (See Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319.) Applicant's account is corroborated by the treating records of Dr. Bahadori and Providence (Ex. Appl. 4; Ex. Appl. 5), which document, in real time, the convergence of uncontrolled hypertension, documented work stress, and right-eye central retinal vein occlusion with ongoing vision loss requiring intravitreal injections and specialty retina care. This contemporaneous documentation, coupled with the medical-legal opinions of Drs. Sami and Grodan, places the finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision squarely within the substantial evidence standard. C. Defendant's Remaining Arguments Are Unpersuasive.

Medical recordsfavours Applicant prevailed

Contemporaneous treating records documenting uncontrolled hypertension, work stress, and retinal vein occlusion with ongoing vision loss

From the decision · page 14Applicant testified credibly regarding the onset of her vision symptoms, their temporal relationship to escalating work stress, and their persistence. (Minutes of Hearing, 11/6/2025, at pp. 4§ 6.) The undersigned observed Applicant's testimony and evaluated her demeanor. That credibility determination is entitled to great weight. (See Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319.) Applicant's account is corroborated by the treating records of Dr. Bahadori and Providence (Ex. Appl. 4; Ex. Appl. 5), which document, in real time, the convergence of uncontrolled hypertension, documented work stress, and right-eye central retinal vein occlusion with ongoing vision loss requiring intravitreal injections and specialty retina care. This contemporaneous documentation, coupled with the medical-legal opinions of Drs. Sami and Grodan, places the finding of industrial injury to the eyes/vision squarely within the substantial evidence standard. C. Defendant's Remaining Arguments Are Unpersuasive.

ADJ14972494 · June 23, 2026

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