ADJ10325000 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration of the Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration issued on December 29, 2023, denied

Read the official decision →

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.

Temporary disabilityApplicant prevailedjaw · TMJ

The WCJ and the Board found substantial evidence in the QME reports of Dr. Abri supporting temporary disability benefits for the period, and rejected the defense arguments based on Dr. Bakst's opinion and applicant's credibility issues.

From the decision · page 2TEMPORARY DISABILITY From a dental and TMJ and muscles pain perspective the patient was temporarily disabled, (Ex. 11, QME report of David Abri, DDS, April 24, 2018, p. 10.)

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The QME reports of Dr. Abri found applicant temporarily disabled from dental, TMJ and muscle pain and opined ongoing symptoms caused by industrial injury requiring continued treatment.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.

QMERelied upon · dentist

Found applicant temporarily disabled from dental, TMJ and muscle pain, and opined ongoing symptoms caused by industrial injury requiring continued treatment.

The WCJ and Board relied on Dr. Abri's reports as substantial evidence supporting temporary disability benefits for the period August 13, 2016 through February 2, 2018.

From the decision · page 2TEMPORARY DISABILITY From a dental and TMJ and muscles pain perspective the patient was temporarily disabled, (Ex. 11, QME report of David Abri, DDS, April 24, 2018, p. 10.)

QMERejected

Diagnosed somatoform functional neurological disorder, opined symptoms non-industrial, assigned 20% WPI but 100% non-industrial apportionment.

The Board found Dr. Bakst's opinion did not support entitlement to temporary disability benefits for the period and was moot to the finding.

From the decision · page 3Bakst opined that applicant's neurological functional disorder is not the result of industrial injury. Here, our December 29, 2023 Opinion and Order cites the WCJ's Report as follows: PQME Dr. Bakst further stated that although the applicant claims to have suffered a traumatic brain injury and concussion, there was no objective evidence of neurological impairment. Dr. Bakst further opined that he thought the duration of the applicant's disability was unusual. In addition, PQME Dr. Bakst stated it appeared to him that the applicant has a functional neurological disorder on a psychological or psychiatric basis which is 100% non-industrial (See Deposition of Dr. Bakst dated July 14, 2022, Joint Exhibit 6, pages 8 and 9). He opined that the psychological condition does NOT rise to the level of industrial causation and because the psych does not arise to the level of industrial level causation, the neurological functional disorder flowing from the psyche is also not industrial. (See Deposition of Dr. Bakst dated July 14, 2022, joint exhibit 6, page 10).

ADJ10325000 · March 25, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page