CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns the employer's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The employer argued that the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule should apply, not the 1997 schedule, and that there was insufficient medical evidence for the finding of dry mouth. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. This decision was based on the fact that the treating physician's reports, crucial for determining the applicable rating schedule, were not admitted into evidence. The Board affirmed the finding of dry mouth as a compensable consequence injury based on existing medical evidence.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns the employer's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The employer argued that the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule should apply, not the 1997 schedule, and that there was insufficient medical evidence for the finding of dry mouth. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. This decision was based on the fact that the treating physician's reports, crucial for determining the applicable rating schedule, were not admitted into evidence. The Board affirmed the finding of dry mouth as a compensable consequence injury based on existing 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.