What the panel ordered
Findings, Order and Award of February 1, 2019 affirmed except for amendment of permanent partial disability rating to 30% based on Dr. Munday's WPI rating alone, rejecting duplication with Dr. Anderson's rating; permanent partial disability indemnity awarded accordingly.
Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration challenging the permanent partial disability rating based on alleged duplication of Whole Person Impairments by two doctors; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and issued a Decision After Reconsideration affirming the injury findings but amending the permanent disability rating.
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 Appeals Board found Dr. Munday's 20% Whole Person Impairment rating to be the most accurate reflection of applicant's actual impairment and rejected the duplication of ratings with Dr. Anderson, amending the permanent disability rating to 30%.
From the decision · page 4In this case, we are persuaded applicant's answer is correct in asserting that Dr. Munday's evaluation of impairment, placing him in Class 2 under Table 13-6 (Criteria for Rating Impairment Related to Mental Status) and giving a rating of 20% WPI within that class, most accurately reflects his actual impairment. As noted above, and in contrast to the WCJ's finding of 42% permanent disability, the rating that most accurately reflects the injured employee's actual impairment is not necessarily the highest rating. On this record, we find no good reason to reject Dr. Munday's opinion, as the AME's opinion ordinarily is followed because the AME has been chosen by the parties for the physician's expertise and neutrality. (Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) Further, in choosing to follow Dr. Munday's evaluation of WPI over that of Dr. Anderson, we observe that it is well-established that the relevant and considered opinion of one physician may constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378-379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525].)