What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Angerman was terminally ill and instructed his office manager to sign his final report if he was unable to do so before his death.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This unique circumstance justified admitting the unsigned report under the doctrine of amanuensis, leading to the grant of defendant's petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3Summarizing, the factual issue: Dr. Angerman dictated his final, five page
supplemental report which he sent out for transcription. At the time, Dr.
Angerman was experiencing chronic heart failure and was not on a
transplant list. He called his office manager of forty years and told him
that he was going to the hospital where he thought he would likely die but
that he wanted to get his final report out even if he was unable to sign the
transcribed report when it was returned. He instructed his office manager
to sign for him if he was unable to do so himself. The office manager
testified that this was the only time in forty years where the doctor had
asked him to sign on his behalf. Dr. Angerman died two days later. The
office manager followed Dr. Angerman's orders and signed the
transcribed report on his behalf and initialed that he had done so. (Joint
Partial Opinion on Decision, p. 8.)
The WCJ deferred findings on permanent disability and apportionment pending further vocational development.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This deferral meant the applicant's contentions for 100% permanent disability were premature and unsupported at this stage, leading to denial of reconsideration on those issues.
From the decision · page 15than finding that applicant had failed to meet his burden of proof, the undersigned ordered further
development of the record so that the vocational reporting could be supplemented in conformity
with the Nunes decision which issued after the start of trial herein.
Dr. Friedman's psychiatric reports lacked competent explanation for impairment addition and relied on non-substantial vocational evidence.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of substantial evidence led to rejection of the applicant's claim for 100% permanent disability based on psychiatric impairment.
From the decision · page 15No. Dr. Friedman's reporting is not substantial on the issue of impairment and
apportionment. He simply concludes that all impairments, in all specialties, should be added
without providing a competent explanation why adding everything is more accurate than utilizing
the CVC, and he fails to discuss how the various impairments, particularly in areas outside his
expertise as a psychiatrist, affect applicant's activities of daily living.
Dr. Gillis's medical opinion found no evidence of stomach injury related to NSAID use despite applicant's history.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ relied on Dr. Gillis's competent analysis to deny the claim of stomach injury.
From the decision · page 23No. The parties selected Bruce Gillis, M.D. as an agreed medical evaluator in internal
medicine to address issues of injury, causation, and apportionment. Dr. Gillis reviewed and
competently analyzed applicant' s voluminous prior treatment records. He noted that although