California WCABPanel decision

ADJ10918846 · December 15, 2023

Petition for reconsideration granted; Joint Findings and Award of September 2, 2023, rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Issues decided: 3
Medical opinions weighed: 4
Authorities named: 2
District office: Los Angeles

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; Joint Findings and Award of September 2, 2023, rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on September 2, 2023, which was rescinded and the matter returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

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.

Permanent disability ratingRemandedlumbar spine · left hip · right hip · bilateral thighs/legs · waist · pelvis · urinary system

The record was found inadequate to determine permanent disability and EDD lien issues; further proceedings were ordered.

Psyche AOE/COERemandedpsyche

The record was found inadequate to determine if applicant sustained a psychiatric injury; further proceedings were ordered.

Temporary disability

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

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.

QMENot substantial evidence · urology

Report challenged as not substantial evidence on temporary disability and permanent disability caused by urinary incontinence.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the report from urology qualified medical examiner (QME) Alec Koo, M.D., is not substantial evidence on the issue of applicant's temporary disability status so the record should be further developed; that the reports from urology treating physician Alexander Gershman M.D., are substantial evidence regarding the permanent disability caused by applicant's urinary incontinence and the report from Dr. Koo is not substantial evidence as to that issue; and that the reports from treating psychologist Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., are substantial evidence that applicant sustained a psychiatric injury as claimed, or in the alternative if they are found not to be substantial evidence, then the record should be further developed in regard to that issue.

PTPNot substantial evidence · psychology

Reports asserted as substantial evidence of psychiatric injury; record found inadequate to confirm.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the report from urology qualified medical examiner (QME) Alec Koo, M.D., is not substantial evidence on the issue of applicant's temporary disability status so the record should be further developed; that the reports from urology treating physician Alexander Gershman M.D., are substantial evidence regarding the permanent disability caused by applicant's urinary incontinence and the report from Dr. Koo is not substantial evidence as to that issue; and that the reports from treating psychologist Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., are substantial evidence that applicant sustained a psychiatric injury as claimed, or in the alternative if they are found not to be substantial evidence, then the record should be further developed in regard to that issue.

PTPNot substantial evidence · orthopedics

Report asserted as substantial evidence regarding permanent disability caused by urinary incontinence.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the report from urology qualified medical examiner (QME) Alec Koo, M.D., is not substantial evidence on the issue of applicant's temporary disability status so the record should be further developed; that the reports from urology treating physician Alexander Gershman M.D., are substantial evidence regarding the permanent disability caused by applicant's urinary incontinence and the report from Dr. Koo is not substantial evidence as to that issue; and that the reports from treating psychologist Judith Schwafel, Ph.D., are substantial evidence that applicant sustained a psychiatric injury as claimed, or in the alternative if they are found not to be substantial evidence, then the record should be further developed in regard to that issue.

AMEGiven great weight · orthopedics

Initial report noted employer inconsistencies and employment history relevant to injury claims.

ADJ10918846 · December 15, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page