CompFox AI Summary
The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per Blackledge v. Bank of America. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per Blackledge v. Bank of America. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.