CompFox AI Summary
In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a $75%$ permanent disability award, arguing the primary treating physician's rating improperly combined various lower extremity impairments, violating the AMA Guides. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the physician's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the need for accurate, not mechanical, application of the Guides. A dissenting opinion argued the rating was not substantial evidence as it failed to follow proper Almaraz-Guzman procedures for deviating from strict AMA Guides application and advocated for remand.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a $75%$ permanent disability award, arguing the primary treating physician's rating improperly combined various lower extremity impairments, violating the AMA Guides. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the physician's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the need for accurate, not mechanical, application of the Guides. A dissenting opinion argued the rating was not substantial evidence as it failed to follow proper Almaraz-Guzman procedures for deviating from strict AMA Guides application and advocated for remand.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.