ADJ11046834 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

February 7, 2020 Findings, Award and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for Reconsideration granted to study legal and factual issues; decision rescinded and matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with opinion

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.

ApportionmentRemandedlow back

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order (F&A), dated February 7, 2020, served February 10, 2020, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a police officer from November 3, 2004 to September 11, 2017, sustained industrial injury to her low back, with the need for further medical care to cure or relive from the effects of the industrial injury. (F&A, p.4, Award No.1.) The WCJ made no specific findings regarding permanent disability or apportionment.

The facts that decided it

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

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.

PTPRelied upon · orthopedics

Rated 13% whole person impairment for prior injury based on clinical judgment equating piriformis syndrome with lumbar DRE category 3 impairment.

His rating was the basis for the prior award and was considered in the apportionment analysis.

From the decision · page 2Applicant has a prior Award for injury to the back and right lower extremity from November 3, 2003 through November 3, 2004 (Case No. ADJ4121352 (SDO 0349771)).2 Applicant received an Award of 30% permanent disability, approved May 19, 2008, based on the 13% impairment described by primary treating physician Larry Dodge, M.D. (Petition, at 2:14; Answer, at 2:4.) Dr. Dodge described his rating methodology as follows:

QMERelied upon · orthopedics

Applicant sustained a new cumulative trauma injury through 2017 with 13% whole person impairment, apportioned 60% to prior cumulative trauma ending 2004, 20% to degenerative changes, and 20% to cumulative trauma ending 2017.

The QME apportioned the impairment among prior injury, degenerative changes, and recent injury, which was disputed in the case.

From the decision · page 2Applicant continued to work for the San Diego Unified Port District, and alleged a new continuous trauma to the low back sustained from November 3, 2004 through September 11, 2017 (Case No. ADJ11046834). Beth Bathgate, M.D., acted as the Qualified Medical Examiner (QME), and evaluated applicant on November 9, 2018. Applicant provided a history of continued periodic flare-ups, noting ongoing requirements that she wear her duty belt. (Ibid.) Applicant's duties included driving in a vehicle with narrow seats, causing changes in her posture while wearing the duty belt, and physically restraining individuals as necessary. (Ibid.) Dr. Bathgate also noted a 2016 MRI study, which revealed degenerative changes in applicant's low back. (Ex. A, report of Beth Bathgate, M.D., dated November 9, 2018, p.3.)

ADJ11046834 · April 12, 2022

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