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.
AMERelied upon · internal medicine
Dr. Gillis opined that the applicant's internal medical disabilities were solely caused by employment at Hani, Inc.
The WCJ found Dr. Gillis' revised opinions substantial medical evidence supporting that internal disabilities were solely due to Hani employment.
From the decision · page 12To attempt to accommodate the concerns of the defense attorney for CIGA, the WCJ
ordered Dr. Gillis to complete a supplemental report to explain supposed discrepancies
alleged by CIGA regarding Dr. Gillis' conclusions in his report of 09-14-2012 and his deposition
of 03-21-2013. Dr. Gillis prepared a report dated 01-08-2019, as set out in Joint Exhibit X17.
Dr. Gillis again provided his explanation about applicant's internal disability and stated "...
the applicant's disability was indeed solely the consequence of his employment at Hani."
AMERelied upon · orthopedics
Dr. Angerman diagnosed a work-related lumbosacral spine herniated disc syndrome from the 1998 injury at RK Chevron.
Dr. Angerman's reports were part of the medical evidence supporting the need for medical treatment for back and right leg injuries.
From the decision · page 12The applicant worked at RK Chevron insured by Clarendon/Enstar from 1991
through July 2, 1998. Applicant suffered a specific injury at RK Chevron on July 2, 1998 and
was evaluated for his condition by orthopedic AME Dr. Alexander Angerman. Dr. Angerman's
first report is dated 12-02-1999 and is set out in Joint Exhibit X37. On page two is a
description of how the injury occurred as a specific event. On page 4 is a description of
AMERelied upon · psychiatry
Dr. Greils provided opinions on the predominant cause of psychiatric injury, supporting the WCJ's findings.
Dr. Greils' deposition was substantial evidence on the issue of predominant cause for psychiatric injury and statute of limitations.
From the decision · page 16Could
the parties have phrased the questions more precisely for Dr. Greils? Could Dr. Greils have
more fully explained the significance of his answer? The WCJ feels that the Dr. Greils'
deposition of 11-09-2021 remains substantial evidence for the issue of predominant cause
for the injury of 07-02-1998 and for the CT claim of 12-03-2001 through 02-05- 2002. The WCJ
feels that Dr. Greils has indicated that there was predominant cause for the injury date for the
CT of 12-03-2001 through 02-05-2002. If this is true, there cannot be predominant cause for
the remaining date of injury; there cannot be two causes totaling more than 50% each. It is a
misfortune for the applicant that Dr. Greils chose the date of injury at the employer who could
not meet the six-month employment requirement.