ADJ6861349 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration filed subsequent to Findings and Award issued on November 27, 2024

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold April 16, 2021.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period from transmission of the case and found no basis to grant reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto.1 Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

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.

otherRejected

Thought Applicant had a repetitive motion injury involving neck and back progressing to TMJ/myofascial pain disorder, but opinion undermined by lack of supporting factual evidence.

Lack of supporting factual evidence and credibility issues led to rejection of this opinion regarding liability for TMJ/dental problems.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Rosenson thought that Applicant had a repetitive motion injury involving her neck as well as her back [Ex 53, P1] and that the cervical trauma progressed to "a temporomandibular joint/myofascial pain disorder" [Ex 53, P5]. This opinion concerning a relationship between Applicant's back injury and her TMJ/dental issues was undermined by lack of supporting factual evidence:

QMERejected

Attributed TMJ/dental problems to direct work-related traumas to head, but opinion was discounted due to lack of history of repetitive trauma and credibility issues with testimony.

Credibility issues with Applicant's testimony and lack of history of repetitive trauma led to disinclination to rely on this opinion.

From the decision · page 8The PQME, Dr. Hagstrom, issued a report in July 2014 in which he blamed the TMJ/dental problems on "direct result of several work related direct traumas. The onset of symptoms corresponds directly with the description of the direct impact to the head and face with a traumatic blow to the head. She reports no other previous medical conditions or injuries." [Ex 67, P17]

otherRelied upon

Explained TMJ/dental problems as a compensable consequence of back pain leading to teeth grinding; this opinion was relied upon by the Court.

The Court found this opinion more plausible and consistent with Applicant's testimony, relying on it to find compensability.

From the decision · page 8The third report, by Dr. Tran, explained that Applicant has back pain and that this pain leads to grinding of teeth, which then leads to the TMJ/dental problems of the type from which Applicant suffers [Ex 64, P5]. This was a more plausible explanation consistent with Applicant's testimony. The Court relied on this opinion to find that the TMJ/dental problems are in fact a compensable consequence of the Applicant's cumulative back injury.

ADJ6861349 · February 24, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page