What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant City of Richmond seeks reconsideration of the October 11, 2024 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) that found applicant sustained industrial injury and 33% permanent disability.
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.
Permanent disability ratingApplicant prevailedlumbar spine
The panel found Dr. Stark's opinion persuasive that the strict AMA Guides rating did not accurately reflect applicant's disability due to significant lifting capacity loss, and that the alternative rating by analogy to hernia injury was appropriate and supported by substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 2On October 11, 2024, the WCA issued his F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant's injury resulted in 33 percent permanent disability. The WCA's Opinion on Decision reviewed the reporting of both IME Dr. Stark as well as Dr. D'Amico but found the reporting of Dr. Stark to be the more persuasive. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 6-8.) Dr. Stark determined that applicant's "strict" rating pursuant to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (AMA Guides), was eight percent impairment using a Diagnosis Related Estimate (DRE) approach. However, Dr. Stark further opined that the impairment derived from the DRE approach did not accurately represent applicant's functional loss, including applicant's losses in capacity for lifting. (Id. at p. 6.) Thus, Dr. Stark rated applicant's disability by analogy to hernia using AMA Guides Table 6-9 and assessed 15 percent impairment. (Ibid.) When adjusted by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, applicant's impairment rated to 33 percent permanent disability. (Finding of Fact No. 5; Award No. "a".)