What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Award amended to extend temporary partial disability through April 6, 2025; otherwise affirmed.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued June 27, 2025; the WCJ's Report recommended denial; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the Findings and Award.
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.
PQME Dr. Konovalenko's well-reasoned medical opinion diagnosing myofascial pain syndrome and attributing the injury to cumulative industrial trauma was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck.
From the decision · page 6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)
Defendant was afforded due process and a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery, including depositions and supplemental reports, despite discovery closure at the mandatory settlement conference.
From the decision · page 9Defendant was aware of a cumulative injury no later than issuance of PQME Dr. Konovalenko's November 12, 2024 report and likely earlier. Defendant has been afforded due process, including a meaningful opportunity to present evidence regarding the issues.
Treating physicians' work restrictions and medical reports supported extending temporary partial disability through April 6, 2025, 45 days after the last treatment report.
From the decision · page 10Temporary partial disability is established from June 19, 2024, through at least the last report of February 20, 2025. "When continuing medical treatment is provided, a progress report shall be made no later than forty-five days from the last report." (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 8, § 9785(f)(8).) As minimum periodic reporting is required, we will extend the temporary partial disability period to forty-five days from the last report of February 20, 2025. Therefore, applicant is found temporarily partially disabled from June 19, 2024, through April 6, 2025. Temporary disability beyond April 6, 2025, is deferred pending further reporting. Either party may seek additional proceedings if unable to adjust benefits informally.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
PQME Dr. Konovalenko diagnosed myofascial pain syndrome of the cervical spine due to cumulative industrial injury from 2020 through June 18, 2024.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical opinion was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE to the neck in favor of applicant.
From the decision · page 6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)
Treating physicians consistently found industrial work restrictions from June 19, 2024 through February 20, 2025.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported extension of temporary partial disability period in favor of applicant.
From the decision · page 6In addition, treater Dr. Jones congruently noted injury from "repetitive work." (Exhibit 10, Dr. Jeff Jones, July 17, 2024, PDF page 3; Dr. Jeff Jones Exhibits 9, 7, 6, and 4.) The treating physicians also support that applicant was not permanent and stationary but rather temporarily partially disabled by providing industrial work restrictions. (Exhibits 3 through 13.) The WCJ notes "the applicant provided credible testimony regarding his job duties that required him to drive on dirt roads that were rutted and filled with rocks and would cause him to bounce up and down
Defendant was afforded due process and opportunity to conduct discovery including depositions and supplemental reports despite discovery closure at mandatory settlement conference.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supported denial of defendant's due process claim in favor of defendant.
From the decision · page 9Defendant was aware of a cumulative injury no later than issuance of PQME Dr. Konovalenko's November 12, 2024 report and likely earlier. Defendant has been afforded due process, including a meaningful opportunity to present evidence regarding the issues.
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 myofascial pain syndrome of the cervical spine due to cumulative industrial injury from 2020 through June 18, 2024; applicant not yet permanent and stationary; work status deferred to primary treating physician.
Well-reasoned and supported by record, found substantial evidence by the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 6Here, PQME Dr. Konovalenko credibly found the "cause of the applicant's current injuries, impairments and disabilities to the neck are attributable to the cumulative industrial injury which occurred from 2020 through June 18, 2024. The described mechanism of injury is consistent with an appropriate force to result in the above listed industrial diagnoses." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 19.) "The applicant has not reached maximal medical improvement and is not yet permanent and stationary for any injury being evaluated." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.) "The applicant's work status is hereafter deferred to the primary treating physician until he has reached maximum medical improvement." (Exhibit 2, PQME Dr. Konovalenko, November 12, 2024, page 20.)
Consistently found industrial work restrictions from June 19, 2024 through February 20, 2025, supporting temporary partial disability.
Supporting evidence for extending temporary partial disability period.
From the decision · page 6In addition, treater Dr. Jones congruently noted injury from "repetitive work." (Exhibit 10, Dr. Jeff Jones, July 17, 2024, PDF page 3; Dr. Jeff Jones Exhibits 9, 7, 6, and 4.) The treating physicians also support that applicant was not permanent and stationary but rather temporarily partially disabled by providing industrial work restrictions. (Exhibits 3 through 13.) The WCJ notes "the applicant provided credible testimony regarding his job duties that required him to drive on dirt roads that were rutted and filled with rocks and would cause him to bounce up and down
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408
Medical evidence that industrial injury was reasonably probable constitutes substantial evidence for injury AOE/COE.
Applied to evaluate sufficiency of medical evidence for injury causation.
From the decision · page 6Medical evidence that industrial injury was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) Although the factual issue of the occurrence of the alleged incident is a determination for the WCJ, the issue of injury is a medical determination, which requires expert medical opinion. As the Court of Appeal explained in Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188]: "Where an issue is exclusively a matter of scientific medical knowledge, expert evidence is essential to sustain a [WCAB] finding; lay testimony or opinion in support of such a finding does not measure up to the standard of substantial evidence. Expert testimony is necessary where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences."
Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831
Expert medical opinion is essential to sustain a WCAB finding on medical issues.
Applied to require expert medical opinion for injury and disability findings.
From the decision · page 6Medical evidence that industrial injury was reasonably probable, although not certain, constitutes substantial evidence for a finding of injury AOE/COE. (McAllister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 417 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) Although the factual issue of the occurrence of the alleged incident is a determination for the WCJ, the issue of injury is a medical determination, which requires expert medical opinion. As the Court of Appeal explained in Peter Kiewit Sons v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 831, 838 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 188]: "Where an issue is exclusively a matter of scientific medical knowledge, expert evidence is essential to sustain a [WCAB] finding; lay testimony or opinion in support of such a finding does not measure up to the standard of substantial evidence. Expert testimony is necessary where the truth is occult and can be found only by resorting to the sciences."
Labor Code section 5502(d)(3)
Discovery evidence not disclosed before mandatory settlement conference is inadmissible unless due diligence shown.
Applied to deny defendant's due process claim regarding discovery closure.
From the decision · page 9PQME Dr. Konovalenko's deposition was not disclosed as an exhibit on the March 24, 2025 PTCS, despite defendant setting the deposition the day of the mandatory settlement conference. "Discovery shall close on the date of the mandatory settlement conference. Evidence not disclosed or obtained thereafter shall not be admissible unless the proponent of the evidence can demonstrate that it was not available or could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence prior to the settlement conference." (Lab. Code, § 5502(d)(3).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony about job duties and conditions causing neck injury
From the decision · page 7and be thrown from side to side." (F&A, Opinion on Decision, page 6.) The applicant also testified to having work restrictions. (F&A, Opinion on Decision, page 7.) We give the WCJ's credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].)
Medical reports and work restrictions supporting temporary partial disability
From the decision · page 6In addition, treater Dr. Jones congruently noted injury from "repetitive work." (Exhibit 10, Dr. Jeff Jones, July 17, 2024, PDF page 3; Dr. Jeff Jones Exhibits 9, 7, 6, and 4.) The treating physicians also support that applicant was not permanent and stationary but rather temporarily partially disabled by providing industrial work restrictions. (Exhibits 3 through 13.) The WCJ notes "the applicant provided credible testimony regarding his job duties that required him to drive on dirt roads that were rutted and filled with rocks and would cause him to bounce up and down
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.