What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of April 30, 2019 rescinded; case remanded to WCJ for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Award rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Permanent disability ratingRemandedleft ankle
Dr. Angerman's apportionment opinion was not substantial evidence because it lacked explanation of the nature and causation of the pre-existing condition; the record lacked substantial evidence for final determination; the case was remanded for further development and supplemental report from Dr. Angerman.
From the decision · page 5As noted above, in his reports. Dr. Angerman discussed apportionment in the context of "the subtraction method." He concluded that if the subtraction method (i.e. the section 4664(b) presumption) was not applicable, then, "... [I]n all medical probability, 80% of the patient's left ankle disability/impairment would be attributable to her prior stipulated injuries." (Joint Exh. AA, p. 42.) Dr. Angerman did not describe the nature of the pre-existing condition. Nor did he explain how and why the prior injuries were causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, or how and why the prior injuries were responsible for 80% of applicant's left ankle disability. Therefore, his opinions do not comply with the requirements of the applicable case law and they do not constitute substantial evidence as to the issue of apportionment. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman), supra; Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra.)