CompFox AI Summary
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision, finding the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion was not substantial evidence. The AME's opinion was deemed unreliable due to potential bias from defense counsel, insufficient medical history, and questionable diagnostic reasoning. The Board remanded the case for further development of the medical record and a new evaluation, instructing the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to analyze potential actual employment events and personnel actions under the Rolda standard. The WCJ must determine if applicant sustained industrial psychiatric injury, considering whether any personnel actions were lawful and in good faith, and if so, if they substantially caused the injury.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision, finding the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion was not substantial evidence. The AME's opinion was deemed unreliable due to potential bias from defense counsel, insufficient medical history, and questionable diagnostic reasoning. The Board remanded the case for further development of the medical record and a new evaluation, instructing the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to analyze potential actual employment events and personnel actions under the Rolda standard. The WCJ must determine if applicant sustained industrial psychiatric injury, considering whether any personnel actions were lawful and in good faith, and if so, if they substantially caused the injury.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.