CompFox AI Summary
The Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision to reduce her permanent disability from $100%$ to $88%$ after apportionment. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unsubstantial and contrary to the well-reasoned opinions of the Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs). Specifically, the Board rejected Dr. Bluestone's opinion due to a failure to account for duplication in impairment factors between rheumatologic and psychiatric conditions. While one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant to be $100%$ permanently disabled based on Dr. Bluestone's findings and other evidence, the majority upheld the apportionment.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior decision to reduce her permanent disability from $100%$ to $88%$ after apportionment. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unsubstantial and contrary to the well-reasoned opinions of the Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs). Specifically, the Board rejected Dr. Bluestone's opinion due to a failure to account for duplication in impairment factors between rheumatologic and psychiatric conditions. While one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant to be $100%$ permanently disabled based on Dr. Bluestone's findings and other evidence, the majority upheld the apportionment.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.