ADJ11171247 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied

Petition for Reconsideration of the June 15, 2023 Findings and Award regarding the effectuation of a second psychiatric evaluation

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition was timely filed but the Board adopted the WCJ's report denying the petition because the second psychiatric evaluation was unnecessary and the final report of Dr. Flores was not admitted into evidence.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the June 15, 2023 Findings and Award (F&A) regarding the "the effectuation of a second psychiatric evaluation." (Petition for Reconsideration, p. 3.) We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate as noted below, we will deny reconsideration.

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.

QMERelied upon

Provided multiple reports and deposition relied upon for awarding 23% permanent disability and temporary disability from September 26, 2017 to February 21, 2018; addressed causation and Rolda Analysis in supplemental report.

Relied upon for permanent disability rating and causation analysis.

From the decision · page 3It was determined that Applicant sustained injury to his psyche, as the result of cumulative trauma during the period of February 3, 1981, to September 26, 2017, while employed as a Paramedic by AMR. In reliance on the PQME/AME report of Ashraf Helmy, M.D., he was awarded 23% permanent disability, after apportionment, based on a stipulation of the parties who agreed to the rating if defendant was unable to prevail on their defenses of injury AOE-COE and legal, good faith, non-discriminatory personnel action. Temporary disability was also awarded for the period found by Dr. Helmy from September 26, 2017, to February 21, 2018.

PTPRejected

Diagnosis referenced by applicant but reports not relied upon; final report not admitted due to lack of proper attestation.

Reports not admitted into evidence; final report excluded.

From the decision · page 4Without saying so, he is apparently referencing his diagnosis by the PTP Nelson Flores, Ph.D., whose reports were not relied upon. The Court had concerns regarding the history obtained by Dr. Flores and his assessment of whether or not apportionment was an issue to be addressed. He was in no way subjected to the scrutiny addressed in Dr. Helmy's multiple reports and deposition. Finally, Defendant's objections to Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 11, which were reports of Dr. Flores, including his final report, were not properly attested. The court allowed 30 days for the defects to be corrected but they were not. Therefore, two of Dr. Flores' reports were not admitted into evidence including his final report. Even if the opinion of Dr. Flores was found to be substantial, without his final report being in evidence we would have to rely on the report of the PQME/AME.

ADJ11171247 · September 11, 2023

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