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
The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of employment by a preponderance of the evidence.
Applied to assess burden of proof for injury causation.
From the decision · page 1The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of
employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast
Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80
Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) Moreover, it 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.) Medical evidence is
Lab. Code, 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627
Decisions by the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence.
Applied to evaluate the sufficiency of medical evidence and credibility determinations.
From the decision · page 1The employee bears the initial burden of proving injury arising out of and in the course of
employment (AOE/COE) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5705; South Coast
Framing v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 297-298, 302 [80
Cal.Comp.Cases 489]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 3600(a).) Moreover, it 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.) Medical evidence is
Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775; Siqueiros v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 150 (writ denied)
The opinions of an AME are entitled to substantial weight absent a showing that they are based on an incorrect factual history or legal theory, or are otherwise unpersuasive in light of the entire record.
Applied to give substantial weight to the AME's opinion in this case.
From the decision · page 6The opinions of an AME are entitled to substantial weight absent a showing that they are
based on an incorrect factual history or legal theory, or are otherwise unpersuasive in light of the
entire record. (See, e.g., Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775 [51
Cal.Comp.Cases 114]; Siqueiros v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 150
(writ denied).)