CompFox AI Summary
The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings due to insufficient medical evidence on apportionment. Specifically, the Board found that the opinions of the orthopedic and psychiatric medical evaluators regarding the apportionment of permanent disability lacked substantial medical evidence. The orthopedic evaluator's apportionment methodology, referencing an AMA Guides example, was deemed improper under current Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The psychiatric evaluator's apportionment was also found insufficient as it did not adequately explain how psychiatric permanent disability should be apportioned separately from injury causation.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings due to insufficient medical evidence on apportionment. Specifically, the Board found that the opinions of the orthopedic and psychiatric medical evaluators regarding the apportionment of permanent disability lacked substantial medical evidence. The orthopedic evaluator's apportionment methodology, referencing an AMA Guides example, was deemed improper under current Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The psychiatric evaluator's apportionment was also found insufficient as it did not adequately explain how psychiatric permanent disability should be apportioned separately from injury causation.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.