ADJ8538699 — California WCAB decision

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailedneck · lumbar spine · wrists · knees · skin · psyche

The petition for reconsideration seeking development of the record was denied because the issue was not raised at trial, no new evidence was presented, and the existing evidence was substantial.

From the decision · page 6The Petitioner did not raise the issue of a need to develop the record. The Minutes of Hearing dated 11/24/2021 set forth the issues to be addressed at trial. The Petitioner specifically did not request that the trial judge order a development of the record. The issue was never raised. Hence there is no finding of fact, decision or final order from which the Petitioner can seek relief.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant did not raise the issue of development of the record at trial and did not request it.

Favours Defendant prevailed

No finding of fact, decision or final order on development of the record existed to support reconsideration.

From the decision · page 6The Petitioner did not raise the issue of a need to develop the record. The Minutes of Hearing dated 11/24/2021 set forth the issues to be addressed at trial. The Petitioner specifically did not request that the trial judge order a development of the record. The issue was never raised. Hence there is no finding of fact, decision or final order from which the Petitioner can seek relief.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

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.

QMERelied upon · psychology

Declared applicant permanent and stationary with psychological injury from work and as a compensable consequence of orthopedic complaints, with a GAF of 55 (23% WPI).

Report was thorough and substantial; no evidence of change in condition or request for re-examination to justify further development.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Kaplan's report of 1/17/2014 (Court's Ex. W) is a thorough psychological report based upon an examination and a review of all pertinent records. She declared Applicant to be permanent and stationary. There is no allegation or evidence of a change in Applicant's condition. There was no request for re-examination.

QMERelied upon · internal medicine

Concluded no industrially aggravated condition in internal medicine; his conclusions were substantive evidence.

No new evidence justified further development; conclusions were substantive evidence.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Majcher reviewed all the records and examined the Applicant. He had a full history. His conclusions that she did not have an industrially aggravated condition in the field of internal medicine was clearly substantive evidence. There is no reason established to cause a development of the record because no new evidence has been presented that would justify same.

QMERelied upon · dermatology

Found industrial injury to skin from prolonged sun exposure with 5% WPI impairment rating.

From the decision · page 5Dr. Howard Sofen acted as PQME in dermatology. He found an industrial injury to the skin resulting from prolonged sun exposure and issued an impairment rating of 5% wpi that was transmitted to the DEU for rating. There were factors of apportionment. The factors of apportionment found by Dr. Kaplan were rejected by the undersigned as unsupported per Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 CCC 604, en

QMERelied upon · orthopedics

Found applicant permanent and stationary with factors of impairment transmitted to DEU for rating.

From the decision · page 5Dr. Richard Rosenberg acted as QME in orthopedics who wrote two reports dated 3/1/2014 and 2/8/2017 (Court's Exs. Z1 & Z2). Applicant was permanent and stationary with factors of impairment that were transmitted to the DEU for rating.

ADJ8538699 · December 2, 2022

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page