CompFox AI Summary
In this workers' compensation case, the applicant challenged the administrative law judge's (WCJ) permanent disability rating of $76%$. The applicant argued that the WCJ improperly combined medical impairments when an agreed medical evaluator suggested adding them for a higher rating of $88%$. The WCJ acknowledged misinterpreting the medical evidence in their report, admitting that the agreed medical evaluator did indicate adding impairments was more appropriate. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow the WCJ to re-evaluate the permanent disability rating based on the correct understanding of the medical evidence.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this workers' compensation case, the applicant challenged the administrative law judge's (WCJ) permanent disability rating of $76%$. The applicant argued that the WCJ improperly combined medical impairments when an agreed medical evaluator suggested adding them for a higher rating of $88%$. The WCJ acknowledged misinterpreting the medical evidence in their report, admitting that the agreed medical evaluator did indicate adding impairments was more appropriate. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow the WCJ to re-evaluate the permanent disability rating based on the correct understanding of the medical 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.