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.
AMERecord developed further · orthopedic medicine
Rated spinal disability using ROM methodology and opined that cervical and lumbar spine impairments should be added before combining with other body parts.
The AME's opinion on adding impairments rather than combining was challenged as conclusory and requiring further explanation under Vigil standards.
From the decision · page 2On May 9, 2024, the WCJ ordered the matter submitted for decision.
On June 26, 2024, the WCJ issued his F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's
injuries resulted in 88 percent permanent disability. The Opinion on Decision explained that the
WCJ relied on the opinions of AME Dr. Newton, which rated applicant's spinal disability using a
ROM methodology. Additionally, Dr. Newton opined that the most accurate rating of applicant's
disability would require adding the cervical and lumbar spine impairments before combining the
resulting disability with other body parts. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 2.)
QMERecord developed further · rheumatology
Provided a 2021 report relevant to fibromyalgia condition, challenged for substantiality but not resolved in this decision.
Defendant contended the 2021 report was more accurate but no specific argument was made; issue deferred for further development.
From the decision · page 9Finally, we acknowledge defendant's contention that the WCJ erred in relying on the 2018
reporting of Dr. Salick because the 2021 reporting of Dr. Silverman more accurately reflects
applicant's current condition. (Petition, at p. 3:19.) We note, however, that other than the passage
of time, defendant's Petition does not offer any specific argument as to why either of the reports
more accurately reflects applicant's current condition. Because we are returning this matter to the
trial level for development of the record regarding permanent disability, we do not reach a
determination on the issue. However, we remind the parties that the question is appropriately
analyzed as an issue of substantiality. In order to constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion
must be predicated on reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals
Bd.
secondary_treaterRecord developed further · rheumatology
Provided earlier 2018 report on fibromyalgia, challenged as no longer germane but issue deferred.
Defendant challenged the 2018 report's relevance; issue deferred for further development.
From the decision · page 9Finally, we acknowledge defendant's contention that the WCJ erred in relying on the 2018
reporting of Dr. Salick because the 2021 reporting of Dr. Silverman more accurately reflects
applicant's current condition. (Petition, at p. 3:19.) We note, however, that other than the passage
of time, defendant's Petition does not offer any specific argument as to why either of the reports
more accurately reflects applicant's current condition. Because we are returning this matter to the
trial level for development of the record regarding permanent disability, we do not reach a
determination on the issue. However, we remind the parties that the question is appropriately
analyzed as an issue of substantiality. In order to constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion
must be predicated on reasonable medical probability. (McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals
Bd.