California WCABPanel decision

ADJ11319185 · October 22, 2021

August 27, 2021 Joint Findings and Award and Orders affirmed except amended to correct clerical errors in permanent disability advances and attorney fees

Issues decided: 2
Medical opinions weighed: 1
Authorities named: 1
District office: San Bernardino

What the panel ordered

August 27, 2021 Joint Findings and Award and Orders affirmed except amended to correct clerical errors in permanent disability advances and attorney fees

Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant was untimely and dismissed; reconsideration granted on Board's own motion to amend prior Findings and Award

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.

Other disputed issueApplicant prevailedpermanent disability advances

The Board found a clerical error in the amount of permanent disability advances and amended the award accordingly.

Other disputed issueDefendant prevailedinternal injuries · urological injuries

The Board denied further development of the record because the medical evidence from PQME Dr. Brox was substantial and applicant failed to obtain additional medical reports or petition for additional panels in a timely manner.

From the decision · page 7

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 →

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed on September 21, 2021 at 6:31 p.m., after the 5:00 p.m. deadline for timely filing.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This made the petition untimely and subject to dismissal, leading the Board to dismiss the petition but grant reconsideration on its own motion.

From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision issued on August 27, 2021 and was served by mail on applicant and applicant's attorney to their addresses as listed in the Official Address Record. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, September 21, 2021 by 5:00 p.m. to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Here, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed in EAMS on Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 6:31 p.m., making it untimely and subject to dismissal. Nevertheless, we grant reconsideration on our own motion pursuant to our authority pursuant to section 5900(b).

PQME Dr. Timothy Brox's medical reports constituted substantial medical evidence and he did not recommend additional panels in internal medicine or urology.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the Board's denial of further development of the record regarding internal and urological injuries.

From the decision · page 8reasoned with citation and discussion of medical research into the issues, and the rational for PQME Dr. Timothy Brox's opinions were explained thoroughly in his reporting and his deposition.

Applicant failed to obtain medical reporting or petition for additional panels in internal medicine or urology despite knowledge of issues outside PQME Dr. Brox's expertise.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure supported the Board's denial of further development of the record.

From the decision · page 10This March 21, 2019 report was served on Applicant's counsel on April 4, 2019, based on the attached proof of service. As such, Applicant had knowledge going back to April of 2019 that PQME Dr. Timothy Brox indicated there were internal and urological issues outside his area of expertise. Applicant had plenty of time to petition for additional panels in internal medicine and/or urology and failed to do so. Applicant also had the opportunity to obtain medical reporting in internal medicine and urology to support the Applications for Adjudication that asserted internal and urological injuries and failed to do so.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed after the 25-day deadline and was untimely.

From the decision · page 2In this case, the WCJ's decision issued on August 27, 2021 and was served by mail on applicant and applicant's attorney to their addresses as listed in the Official Address Record. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Tuesday, September 21, 2021 by 5:00 p.m. to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Here, applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was filed in EAMS on Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 6:31 p.m., making it untimely and subject to dismissal. Nevertheless, we grant reconsideration on our own motion pursuant to our authority pursuant to section 5900(b).

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Medical reporting of PQME Dr. Timothy Brox was substantial and well reasoned with citation and discussion of medical research.

From the decision · page 8reasoned with citation and discussion of medical research into the issues, and the rational for PQME Dr. Timothy Brox's opinions were explained thoroughly in his reporting and his deposition.

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant failed to obtain medical reporting or petition for additional panels in internal medicine or urology despite knowledge of issues outside PQME Dr. Brox's expertise.

From the decision · page 10This March 21, 2019 report was served on Applicant's counsel on April 4, 2019, based on the attached proof of service. As such, Applicant had knowledge going back to April of 2019 that PQME Dr. Timothy Brox indicated there were internal and urological issues outside his area of expertise. Applicant had plenty of time to petition for additional panels in internal medicine and/or urology and failed to do so. Applicant also had the opportunity to obtain medical reporting in internal medicine and urology to support the Applications for Adjudication that asserted internal and urological injuries and failed to do so.

ADJ11319185 · October 22, 2021

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