CompFox AI Summary
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the $48%$ permanent disability rating was unsupported by evidence and that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion was insufficient. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding the AME's analysis, based on analogy within the AMA Guides for upper extremity impairment, provided substantial evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the AME failed to sufficiently explain his reasoning for deviating from standard measurements, making his opinion unsubstantiated medical evidence.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the $48%$ permanent disability rating was unsupported by evidence and that the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion was insufficient. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding the AME's analysis, based on analogy within the AMA Guides for upper extremity impairment, provided substantial evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the AME failed to sufficiently explain his reasoning for deviating from standard measurements, making his opinion unsubstantiated 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.