Michael Cadillac, Inc.; Employers Insurance Of Wausau Michael Davis WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAMICHAEL DAVIS, Applicant,vs.MICHAEL CADILLAC, INC.; EMPLOVERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, Defendants.Case No. ADJ6631604OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION On December 17, 2010, we granted applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration of the October 13, 2010 Findings of Fact and Order issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therein, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his back while employed during the period from December 2004 through June 2008 and that the report of Charles Touton, M.D., is more persuasive and well reasoned than the reports of Rolf Scherman, M.D. Based on these findings, the WCJ issued an Order that applicant take nothing by way of his claim. We granted reconsideration in order to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We now issue our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant contends that the WCJ should have relied on the opinion of Dr. Scherman to find injury (AOE/COE). Defendant filed an Answer, and 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, as well as for the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the October 13, 2010 Findings of Fact and Order. , We agree with the WCJ that applicant did not carry his burden on the issue of injury AOE/COE. In addition, we note that to qualify as substantial evidence, a physician’s report must 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
Menu
