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.
QMEPartially credited · internal medicine and gastroenterology
Found no indication for apportionment; rated 15% whole person impairment under AMA Guides Table 6-3 based on continuous medication use despite no weight loss.
Dr. Woolf's opinion provides no substantial medical evidence for non-industrial apportionment; his rating complies with AMA Guides and is substantial evidence for permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 9Here, Defendant argues that Dr. Woolf's reporting is not substantial medical evidence as
to apportionment. The undersigned agrees, in part. Dr. Woolf's opinion provides no substantial
medical evidence on which the Board can find any non-industrial apportionment. Instead, Dr.
Woolf notes that apportionment is "not indicated." (Exhibit "4" pg. 8). Additionally, Dr. Lira's
internal report provides no basis for non-industrial apportionment. (See Exhibit "E"). Defendant
has thus provided no substantial medical evidence of apportionable disability. Defendant failed to
meet their burden of proof on apportionment from an internal medicine standpoint.
QMERelied upon · psychiatry
Determined psychiatric injury should not be apportioned due to traumatic childhood and successful coping; no substantial evidence for non-industrial apportionment.
Dr. Maloff's thorough discussion of applicant's history supports no non-industrial apportionment; defendant failed to provide substantial evidence to the contrary.
From the decision · page 10As noted above, Defendant bears the burden of proof on Apportionment. Contrary to
Defendant's assertion, Dr. Maloff considered and discussed Applicant's history. (See Exhibits "1-
3"). Dr. Maloff noted a remarkable history of adjustment given Applicant's traumatic childhood
(Exhibit "2" pg. 32) noting his successful work life and high school career. (Id.). Dr. Maloff also
discussed Applicant's successful coping mechanisms and overall "excellent performance in his
position with the California Institution for Men. (Id. pg. 33). Based on Dr. Maloff's thorough
discussions of Applicant's history, I found it reasonable for Dr. Maloff to opine that non-industrial
apportionment was not indicated. As Defendant did not present substantial medical evidence that
there was non-industrial apportionment, they failed to carry their burden. As such, Applicant is
entitled to an unapportioned award.
PTPPartially credited
Provided internal report with no basis for non-industrial apportionment.
Dr. Lira's report does not support non-industrial apportionment, supporting defendant's failure to meet burden of proof.
From the decision · page 9Here, Defendant argues that Dr. Woolf's reporting is not substantial medical evidence as
to apportionment. The undersigned agrees, in part. Dr. Woolf's opinion provides no substantial
medical evidence on which the Board can find any non-industrial apportionment. Instead, Dr.
Woolf notes that apportionment is "not indicated." (Exhibit "4" pg. 8). Additionally, Dr. Lira's
internal report provides no basis for non-industrial apportionment. (See Exhibit "E"). Defendant
has thus provided no substantial medical evidence of apportionable disability. Defendant failed to
meet their burden of proof on apportionment from an internal medicine standpoint.
PTPNot substantial evidence
Provided reporting considered in the record but no specific opinion on apportionment detailed.
From the decision · page 8Applicant relied upon reporting of Psychiatric Panel QME Dr. Perry Maloff (Exhibits "1"-
"3") and Internal Panel QME, Dr. Graham Woolf (Exhibits "4"-"6"). Defendant relied upon the
reports of Dr. Woolf (Exhibits "A" and "B"), Deposition testimony of Dr. Maloff (Exhibit "C"),
Defendant's own correspondence to Dr. Maloff (Exhibit "D"), Reporting of internal treating
physician, Dr. Alex Lira (Exhibit "E"), Reporting of psyche treating physician, Dr. David
Friedman (Exhibits "F" and "G") as well as Benefits and IDL Printouts (Exhibits "H" and "I").
The applicant testified at trial and the matter was submitted on September 9, 2024.