What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued July 28, 2025, challenging the medical evidence and impairment ratings. The WCJ's Report recommended denial of the Petition, and the Appeals Board reviewed and denied the Petition on November 4, 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 PQME's expert medical opinion was found to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings, and defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or properly investigate before trial.
From the decision · page 5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME Jagtar Dhesi provided expert medical opinion supporting industrial injury causation and impairment ratings.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Appeals Board found this expert opinion to be substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's findings and rejected defendant's contrary assertions due to lack of rebuttal evidence.
From the decision · page 6Jagtar Dhesi reviewed extensive medical records, evaluated the applicant and provided expert medical opinion that industrial injury was reasonably probable. (Exhibits 101 and 102.)
Applicant testified credibly about left hip pain and compensating for injured hips, supported by PQME's consistent medical opinion.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility determinations by the WCJ were given great weight and supported the injury findings.
From the decision · page 4At trial, applicant testified in part: From the injury, she also felt pain in her left hip due to compensating for the injured hips during workouts or walking.
Defendant failed to provide rebuttal medical evidence or conduct timely investigation before trial to challenge PQME's opinions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of rebuttal evidence and failure to investigate undermined defendant's challenge to the medical evidence and impairment ratings.
From the decision · page 7We note the record is devoid of any attempt by defendant to challenge the expert medical opinions of PQME Jagtar Dhesi either by providing rebuttal medical evidence, or seeking cross examination by deposition or supplemental report request.3 Defendant has an affirmative duty to aid the parties and the WCJ in developing the record if it believes there is any doubt about the provision of benefits to an injured worker.
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.
Diagnosed lumbar sprain/strain/pain, lumbar neuritis/radiculitis, right hip sprain/strain/pain; found industrial injury causation; assigned impairments: lumbar Category III at 13%, right hip loss of motion 6%, left hip loss of motion 2%, Class 1 scar formation 9%, and pain add on 3%.
Provided expert medical opinion supporting injury causation and impairment ratings, which was found substantial evidence by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 3On February 6, 2024, Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Jagtar Dhesi, D.C., evaluated the applicant and issued a report dated February 13, 2024, diagnosing lumbar sprain/strain/pain, lumbar neuritis/radiculitis, and right hip sprain/strain/pain. (Exhibit 101, PQME Jagtar Dhesi, D.C., February 13, 2024, page 15.) The injury occurred when applicant was hosing down an animal enclosure that had bridges over water. As applicant walked over a bridge it folded and applicant fell against a chain link fence, her leg went down into the channel, and a nail cut straight down her leg. (Exhibit 101, PQME Jagtar Dhesi, D.C., February 13, 2024, pages 1-2.) Industrial injury was found. Applicant was not at maximum medical improvement and was not considered permanent and stationary. (Exhibit 101, PQME Jagtar Dhesi, D.C., February 13, 2024, page 16.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637; Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838; McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417; Place v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378
A decision must be based on admitted evidence and supported by substantial evidence; expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve medical issues.
Applied to evaluate the sufficiency of medical evidence and expert opinions in support of injury causation and impairment ratings.
From the decision · page 5A decision must be based on admitted evidence in the record and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Where the issue in dispute is a medical one, expert medical evidence is ordinarily needed to resolve the issue. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 905, 912 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 913]; Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant testified credibly about left hip pain and compensating for injured hips during workouts or walking.
From the decision · page 4At trial, applicant testified in part: From the injury, she also felt pain in her left hip due to compensating for the injured hips during workouts or walking.
PQME Jagtar Dhesi reviewed extensive medical records and clinical findings supporting industrial injury and impairment.
From the decision · page 6Jagtar Dhesi reviewed extensive medical records, evaluated the applicant and provided expert medical opinion that industrial injury was reasonably probable. (Exhibits 101 and 102.)
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.