COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MARYLOU SMITH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMARYLOU SMITH, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the March 5, 2012 Findings of Fact issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury to her sinuses arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) during the period from July 15, 2003 through July 15, 2005. Defendant contends that the WCJ should have relied on the opinion of agreed medical examiner (AME) Revels Cayton, M.D., to find that applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her sinuses. Defendant argues that Dr. Cayton’s opinion is substantial evidence; that the opinion of applicant’s treating physician, Bruce Ryhal, M.D., on whom the WCJ relied, is not substantial evidence; and that the record does not establish that applicant suffered work place exposure to mold at a level materially greater than that in the general public. Applicant filed an Answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons discussed by the WCJ in his Report, which we adopt and incorporate herein by reference, as well as for the reasons discussed below, we deny reconsideration. This is a highly complex medical causation case. We agree with the WCJ that good cause exists to find Dr. Cayton’s opinion unpersuasive and to rely on Dr. Ryhal’s opinion on the issue of causation. , The opinions of an AME are entitled to substantial weight except where there is a showing that they are based on an incorrect factual history or legal theory, or are otherwise unpersuasive in light of the entire record. (See, Powers v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd .(1986) 179 Cal.App
