CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that only 20% of the GERD impairment was due to the industrial injury. The applicant argued the QME's apportionment report lacked substantial evidence, but the Board agreed with the WCJ that the doctor provided sufficient reasoning. The QME's report detailed the applicant's prior history of GERD and explained how NSAID prescriptions related to the work injury contributed to the current impairment. Therefore, the Board found the QME's opinions on apportionment and permanent disability to be substantial evidence.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that only 20% of the GERD impairment was due to the industrial injury. The applicant argued the QME's apportionment report lacked substantial evidence, but the Board agreed with the WCJ that the doctor provided sufficient reasoning. The QME's report detailed the applicant's prior history of GERD and explained how NSAID prescriptions related to the work injury contributed to the current impairment. Therefore, the Board found the QME's opinions on apportionment and permanent disability to be substantial evidence.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.