Inconsistencies Abound but don’t Hurt Calif. Worker’s Case

Case File

While a California worker presented some contradictory information about his injury, they weren't enough to show that he did not experience an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Menchaca v. Hedman Manufacturing Co., No. ADJ12718876 (WCAB Cal. 10/17/22).

What Happened

A painter claimed he sustained injury to his knees, shoulders, ankles, back, neck, hands, and fingers.

A panel qualified medical evaluator opined that it was reasonable to conclude that a contributory causative factor of injury and impairment involved in the worker's case was an industrial injury, even though there were no medical reports indicating that the painter sought or received medical treatment while working for his employer. The painter's doctor also opined that the painter's injuries were the result of repetitive stress from his job.

A workers' compensation judge found that the painter did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment to various body parts while employed for the employer. In particular, the WCJ found conflicting testimony from the painter provided to the medical providers and the court.

The painter appealed to the state's Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Rule of Law

With respect to matters requiring medical knowledge, a WCJ cannot disregard a medical expert's conclusion when the conclusion is based on expertise in evaluating the significance of medical facts.

What the WCAB Said

The WCAB found that the painter's claim carried substantial evidence to support a conclusion that his injury was work-related since both the painter's doctor and the PQME physician concluded that the painter sustained a cumulative injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

Specifically, both doctors reviewed the painters:

+ Medical records

+ Diagnostic studies

+ Medical history

+ Work history

Additionally, both doctors conducted physical examinations of the painter and explained their analyses.

"There is substantial medical evidence in the record here to support a finding of AOE/COE," the WCAB wrote.

So, what of the inconsistencies that bothered the WCJ?

The WCAB found the apparent contradictions less problematic than the WCJ.

"The inconsistencies in applicant’s testimony at trial include the weight of the heaviest object applicant lifted while working, what year he started feeling the pain in his knee while working, and telling the PQME he never climbed at work and then testified he did have to climb ladders," WCAB wrote. "While there may be inconsistencies in applicant’s testimony, they are not crucial to the
mechanism of injury."

Instead, the WCAB highlighted that the doctors found that repetitive work as a painter was consistent with the injury sustained arising out of and occurring in the course of employment.

Therefore, the WCAB found that the painter sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment and rescinded the WCJ's decision.

Takeaway

Inconsistencies in a California workers' compensation applicant's medical testimony won't spell doom for his claim if they are not crucial to the mechanism of injury.

Share This Article: