What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review
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.
The WCJ's findings that Dr. Williams' reports were not substantial evidence and ordering the parties to agree on an AME were preliminarily found to lack sufficient support, leading to granting reconsideration and deferring final decision for further review.
From the decision · page 5... Here, there are numerous issues with Dr. Williams' reporting. First, it appears he only reviewed medical reports at the time he performed his initial evaluation in May of 2020, and in fact, some of those reports were viewed on applicant's phone. (Exhibit 15 at p. 4.) Further, the few records he reviewed only addressed the thoracic spine, and the most recent report was dated December of 2018. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Aside from some x-rays, it is unclear whether applicant received any medical treatment to his knee or lumbar spine.