CompFox AI Summary
In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding the applicant sustained an industrial injury and $87%$ permanent disability. The defendant argued the administrative law judge erred by relying on the primary treating physician's opinions and using a Diagnosis Related Estimates method instead of Range of Motion. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the physician's reports constituted substantial medical evidence and the judge did not err in their application. Although the Board found the judge incorrectly stated the defendant waived its objection to the evidence, the core findings were upheld.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award finding the applicant sustained an industrial injury and $87%$ permanent disability. The defendant argued the administrative law judge erred by relying on the primary treating physician's opinions and using a Diagnosis Related Estimates method instead of Range of Motion. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the physician's reports constituted substantial medical evidence and the judge did not err in their application. Although the Board found the judge incorrectly stated the defendant waived its objection to the evidence, the core findings were upheld.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.