Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
Reconsideration granted to address errors in permanent disability rating and apportionment. Matter returned for new rating considering walker use and clarifying apportionment.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a denied authorization for Synvisc knee injections. The original Independent Medical Review (IMR) denied the request, finding no documentation of the applicant's osteoarthritis failing to respond to conservative treatment. The Appeals Board found this IMR determination was based on a plainly erroneous finding of fact, as medical records in the file directly contradicted this assertion. Therefore, the Board granted the applicant's appeal, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and remanded the case for a new IMR.
Applicant sought reconsideration of a $23\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the $40\%$ apportionment to non-industrial factors lacked substantial medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the trial judge's report. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's apportionment was based on substantial medical evidence, including applicant's pre-existing osteoarthritis and a prior knee replacement, which explained the causation for the permanent disability. The Board also confirmed timely action on the petition within the statutory 60-day period.
The Appeals Board rescinded the original award due to an insufficient apportionment of permanent disability. The Board found that the QME's opinion, which attributed 75% of the applicant's left knee disability to pre-existing osteoarthritis, lacked adequate reasoning and was not substantial evidence. Therefore, the case was returned for further development of the record regarding apportionment, specifically concerning the QME's rationale. The Board clarified that while the applicant sustained an admitted injury to her left knee, the extent of permanent disability and its causation require further medical evaluation.
The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding applicant reached permanent and stationary status on October 3, 2008, based on Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Dr. Chun's substantial evidence. The Board also upheld the 90% apportionment of permanent disability to applicant's pre-existing degenerative osteoarthritis, finding Dr. Chun's opinion supported by Dr. Rimoldi's report. The applicant's arguments regarding the P&S date and apportionment were rejected as misplaced or not supported by substantial evidence.
The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the applicant's right knee injury did not have an indicated permanent disability in 2004 based on treating physician reports, thus requiring the use of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The majority concluded that Dr. Lim's MRI report, while showing tears, did not explicitly state the existence of permanent disability from the industrial injury, and the treating physician's report at the time showed no physical evidence of permanent impairment. A dissenting opinion argued that Dr. Lim's MRI report, supported by subsequent medical findings and the applicant's ongoing restrictions, indicated permanent disability in 2004, warranting application of the older 1997 rating schedule.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that the applicant was only temporarily disabled from June 1, 2007, to July 23, 2007, and was not entitled to further travel expense reimbursement. The WCJ determined that while one physician's opinion could constitute substantial evidence, that opinion lacked sufficient clarity and consistency to support the applicant's broader claims of temporary disability and cumulative trauma to the left knee and back. The Board affirmed that a single physician's considered opinion can be substantial evidence, even if inconsistent with other medical opinions.
This case involved a firefighter/paramedic seeking increased permanent disability for knee injuries. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The judge's decision was based on the agreed medical examiner's opinion, which apportioned 30% of the permanent disability to non-industrial factors, including a prior knee injury and the natural progression of arthritis.
This case involves a police officer claiming industrial injuries to multiple body parts, including orthopedic and digestive systems, in addition to previously resolved cardiovascular and hearing claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injuries to his neck, upper extremities, back, legs, or digestive system. This decision was based on substantial evidence from Qualified Medical Examiners (QMEs) who concluded these conditions were degenerative and non-industrial. The WCAB found no error in the QMEs' reasoning or the applicant's failure to prove industrial causation for these specific injuries.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and found that the applicant, James Lewis, sustained a cumulative injury to his bilateral hips in addition to previously acknowledged injuries. This finding was based on new evidence, including medical reports and testimony, establishing that Lewis was unaware of his hip condition until February 25, 2014, despite prior medical evaluations. The Board determined that the date of injury for his hip condition was February 25, 2014, making it timely to reopen the claim. Consequently, the award was amended to include the hip injury, and all other issues were deferred.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.