CompFox AI Summary
In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Dr. Wertheimer's opinions constituted substantial medical evidence. The defendant argued Dr. Wertheimer's conclusions lacked an objective basis, were inconsistent, and included a psychiatric diagnosis outside his orthopedic expertise. The Appeals Board reviewed the record, including Dr. Wertheimer's reports and depositions, and found his opinions sufficiently explained and supported. Therefore, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that Dr. Wertheimer's opinions constituted substantial medical evidence. The defendant argued Dr. Wertheimer's conclusions lacked an objective basis, were inconsistent, and included a psychiatric diagnosis outside his orthopedic expertise. The Appeals Board reviewed the record, including Dr. Wertheimer's reports and depositions, and found his opinions sufficiently explained and supported. Therefore, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.