Friendly Franchisees Corporation Dba Carl’s Jr; United States Fire Insurance Company; administered by Crum And Forster, Anganye Choy, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAANGANYE CHOY,Applicant,vs.FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION DBA CARL’S JR; UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; administered by CRUM AND FORSTER,Defendants.Case No. ADJ9422751(Van N uys District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. 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. To be considered substantial evidence, a medical opinion “must be predicated on reasonable medical probability.” (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; McAllister v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, 413, 416-17, 419 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660].) A physician’s report must also be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions. (Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en bane), 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1506 (writ den.).) For the reasons stated in the WCJ’s report, we agree that the opinion of Leon Brooks, M.D., the panel qualified medical examiner (PQME) was based on an adequate examination and set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions and, therefore, substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied. , We observe, moreover, it is well-established th
