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 · psychology
Applicant's multiple psychological problems and concomitant psychiatric diagnosis, secondary to her 07/09/2012 industrial injury, have increased and she has suffered new and further psychological disability; there continues to be a need for medical treatment that has yet to be provided
Parties chose AME for expertise and neutrality; defendant presented no evidence establishing good cause to ignore AME opinions
From the decision · page 8Here, applicant presented substantial evidence establishing permanent total disability both through vocational evidence and direct medical preclusions. Both the psychological AME and the prior psychological QME agreed that applicant’s untreated psychological impairments effectively preclude her from gainful employment.
QMEPartially credited · psychology
Provided work restrictions that formed basis for vocational analysis
Retired; replaced by AME Jeffrey Friedman
From the decision · page 3Applicant was initially evaluated for psychological injury by qualified medical evaluator Rita Hyman, Ph.D., who authored six reports and was deposed. (Applicant’s Exhibits 19 through 25.) However, Dr. Hyman retired and the parties thereafter selected Jeffrey Friedman, Ph.D., as an agreed medical evaluator (AME) to replace Dr. Hyman. Dr.
QMEPartially credited · orthopedics
History of cervical strain, lumbar fusion L4-S1 and right rotator cuff repair with distal clavicle excision; recommended and applicant received spinal cord stimulator
Provided orthopedic work restrictions considered in vocational analysis
From the decision · page 2Applicant was evaluated for her orthopedic injuries by qualified medical evaluator (QME) Steven Pearson, M.D., who authored three reports in evidence as pertains to applicant’s petition to reopen. (Joint Exhibits 2 through 4.) Dr.
otherRejected
Applicant 'may' be feasible for vocational rehabilitation but has 'definite challenges'
Equivocal opinion using 'may' rather than reasonable degree of probability is not substantial evidence
From the decision · page 8Next, the reporting of defendant’s vocational expert is not substantial evidence. Defendant’s expert provided an equivocal opinion. Defendant’s expert states that applicant “may” be feasible for vocational rehabilitation, but then goes on to say that applicant has “definite challenges” to vocational rehabilitation.