ADJ16445262 · January 5, 2026

The issue of cumulative injury to the circulatory system was deferred pending further development of the medical record.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of October 3, 2025, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her head, brain and neck while employed on June 28, 2022 as a licensed vocational nurse in case ADJ18616858. It was also found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the right arm, right wrist, right fingers, back, right shoulder, hips, legs, knees, feet, right ankle, brain, and psyche during a cumulative period from February 1, 2022 through July 7, 2022 in case ADJ16445262. However, the issue of cumulative injury to the circulatory system in case ADJ16445262 was deferred pending further development of the medical record. With regard to the allegation of cumulative injury to the psyche, it was found that applicant's claim was barred pursuant to Labor Code section 3208.3(d) because applicant's employment lasted less than the requisite six months. In finding no industrial injury in the specific injury case (ADJ18616858), the WCJ found that applicant's claim that she fell backwards and hit her head against the wall while at work was not credible.

The WCJ found applicant's testimony not credible due to failure to report injury, inconsistent accounts, and lack of contemporaneous medical records; the WCAB found the record needed further development and analysis, including husband's testimony and medical reports.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Joint Findings and Order of October 3, 2025, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her head, brain and neck while employed on June 28, 2022 as a licensed vocational nurse in case ADJ18616858. It was also found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to the right arm, right wrist, right fingers, back, right shoulder, hips, legs, knees, feet, right ankle, brain, and psyche during a cumulative period from February 1, 2022 through July 7, 2022 in case ADJ16445262. However, the issue of cumulative injury to the circulatory system in case ADJ16445262 was deferred pending further development of the medical record. With regard to the allegation of cumulative injury to the psyche, it was found that applicant's claim was barred pursuant to Labor Code section 3208.3(d) because applicant's employment lasted less than the requisite six months. In finding no industrial injury in the specific injury case (ADJ18616858), the WCJ found that applicant's claim that she fell backwards and hit her head against the wall while at work was not credible.

Applicant did not report the injury to her supervisor and gave inconsistent accounts regarding her failure to report.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This undermined the credibility of applicant's testimony, leading the WCJ to find no industrial injury.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that he did not find the applicant's testimony credible because of her failure to report the injury, giving inconsistent accounts regarding her motivations for not reporting the injury, and the fact that the fall was not reflected in contemporaneous medical records. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 6-12.) However, the Opinion on Decision does not discuss the testimony of applicant's husband, who stated that he was told of the fall soon after it supposedly took place, witnessed a bump that had not been there previously, and applied ointment on the bump and wound. In the Report, the WCJ states that he considered the husband's testimony, but does not directly comment on the husband's credibility or state why he did not rely on this testimony.

Applicant's husband's testimony about the fall and injury was not credited by the WCJ but requires further analysis.

Favours neutral

The WCAB found the record incomplete without a direct analysis of the husband's credibility, warranting remand for further development.

From the decision · page 4We believe that the record in this matter needs further development and analysis. The WCJ must make a more direct analysis of the applicant's husband's credibility and give more in-depth explanation regarding why he believed or disbelieved the applicant's husband's testimony, independent of any questions regarding the applicant's credibility. Additionally, it may be helpful for the resolution of this issue to allow Dr. Chodakiewitz to complete his medical reporting, as it appears that he was waiting on several diagnostic studies and a reevaluation of the applicant to conclude whether applicant sustained neurological injury within the meaning of Labor Code section 3208.1(a). (October 9, 2024 deposition at pp. 17-19, 57-58, 70-73; March 31, 2025 report at pp. 9-10.) The parties may also find it helpful to obtain evidence from any of applicant's co-

Awaiting completion of medical reporting to conclude whether applicant sustained neurological injury within the meaning of Labor Code section 3208.1(a).

The WCAB noted that Dr. Chodakiewitz was waiting on diagnostic studies and reevaluation to complete his medical opinion on neurological injury.

From the decision · page 4We believe that the record in this matter needs further development and analysis. The WCJ must make a more direct analysis of the applicant's husband's credibility and give more in-depth explanation regarding why he believed or disbelieved the applicant's husband's testimony, independent of any questions regarding the applicant's credibility. Additionally, it may be helpful for the resolution of this issue to allow Dr. Chodakiewitz to complete his medical reporting, as it appears that he was waiting on several diagnostic studies and a reevaluation of the applicant to conclude whether applicant sustained neurological injury within the meaning of Labor Code section 3208.1(a). (October 9, 2024 deposition at pp. 17-19, 57-58, 70-73; March 31, 2025 report at pp. 9-10.) The parties may also find it helpful to obtain evidence from any of applicant's co-

Concluded part-time employment over five months could not alone develop carpal tunnel syndrome; recommended further analysis of concurrent or prior employment and electro-diagnostic studies.

Dr. Raman provided opinion on cumulative injury and electro-diagnostic studies relevance.

From the decision · page 5With regard to the cumulative injury claim, while qualified medical evaluator orthopedist Hamid U. Raman, M.D. concluded that part-time employment over five months could not have on its own developed carpal tunnel syndrome, the parties and the WCJ may wish to analyze whether concurrent or prior employment, in addition to the employment at Pinegrove, contributed to a compensable cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code section 5500.5. Additionally, Dr. Hamid should provide a more in-depth discussion of the positive electro-diagnostic studies, and why they should be followed or discounted. (October 24, 2023 deposition at pp. 29-31.)

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of case transmission to the Appeals Board.

The WCAB timely acted on the petition within the 60-day period.

From the decision · page 2Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:

Labor Code sections 3202.5, 5705

Applicant has the burden of establishing reasonable probability of industrial causation.

Applicant failed to carry burden due to lack of credible evidence of injury.

From the decision · page 8"The applicant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of establishing the `reasonable probability of industrial causation'" (LaTourette v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 17 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 253] citing McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705.) Here, since her testimony was impeached and found not credible, applicant neither set forth a prima facie case, nor carried her ultimate burden of proof. Similarly, even if the reporting and testimony of Dr. Chodakiewitz is interpreted to conclude that applicant's fall contributed to a need for medical treatment or disability pursuant to Labor Code section 3208.1(a), it is based on applicant's incorrect history, and thus does not constitute substantial medical evidence. (Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162, 169 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 1993]; Zemke v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 794, 801 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 358].)

Applicant's husband's testimony about the fall and injury was considered but not credited by the WCJ; the WCAB found further analysis of his credibility necessary.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that he did not find the applicant's testimony credible because of her failure to report the injury, giving inconsistent accounts regarding her motivations for not reporting the injury, and the fact that the fall was not reflected in contemporaneous medical records. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 6-12.) However, the Opinion on Decision does not discuss the testimony of applicant's husband, who stated that he was told of the fall soon after it supposedly took place, witnessed a bump that had not been there previously, and applied ointment on the bump and wound. In the Report, the WCJ states that he considered the husband's testimony, but does not directly comment on the husband's credibility or state why he did not rely on this testimony.

Applicant's testimony was found not credible by the WCJ due to failure to report injury, inconsistent accounts, and lack of contemporaneous medical records.

From the decision · page 4The WCJ explained in the Opinion on Decision that he did not find the applicant's testimony credible because of her failure to report the injury, giving inconsistent accounts regarding her motivations for not reporting the injury, and the fact that the fall was not reflected in contemporaneous medical records. (Opinion on Decision at pp. 6-12.) However, the Opinion on Decision does not discuss the testimony of applicant's husband, who stated that he was told of the fall soon after it supposedly took place, witnessed a bump that had not been there previously, and applied ointment on the bump and wound. In the Report, the WCJ states that he considered the husband's testimony, but does not directly comment on the husband's credibility or state why he did not rely on this testimony.