The Question has to do with The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of the State of California and all states, Healthcare and the Burden of Proof in determining Worker's Compensation Benefits for injured workers. Who did the burden of proof land on the Plaintiff or Defendant and since it does not pass the thresh hole level of having a doctor's diagnosis for the cause of injury the preponderance of evidence need not be considered; What constitutes Burden of Proof. The Plaintiff says it's in the ponderance of evidence, the Defendants' says it's based only on a QME or AME doctor's diagnosis. Only the United States Supreme Court can only further decide this matter of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt imposed on Healthcare and Diagnosis.

Cana Compromise and Release that has already proved up that a specific injury occurred during employment be used as evidence as cause of Cumulative Trauma, when the specific exposure is progressive and incurable. Only since the matter of Tina Bradford V. Worker's Compensation Appeals Board and Los Angeles County Office of Education (2013) were newly adopted lCD9 Medical Codes (lCD9, CM139.8,2015) and newly adopted QME and AME amended procedures (SB 863) were added into California Law. AME And QME medical diagnosis procedures are no longer permitted to address medical treatment dispute issues. 8CCR, 35.5 (g) (2) provides "evaluation performed on or after July 1, 2013 regardless of date of injury shall not provide opinion on any disputed medical concerning how to diagnosis and rate disability based on rare disease. This is an important issue that only the United States Supreme Court can decide to protect American injured workers, human resource, -quality Healthcare and a right to humanity (Federal Labor Standards Act, FLSA).

Whether the burden of proof for workers' compensation benefits should be on the plaintiff or defendant, and whether a compromise and release agreement can be used as evidence of a cumulative trauma injury