CompFox AI Summary
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings because the WCJ did not adequately consider the applicant's post-injury earning capacity as required by Ogilvie I and Ogilvie II. The WCJ failed to adequately explain the calculation of the applicant's earnings loss and did not provide substantial medical evidence supporting her inability to work. The Board requires further development of the record, particularly medical opinions on work capacity, before a complete Ogilvie analysis can be performed. This includes assessing whether the earning loss is industrially caused and weighing the adjusted DFEC factor against the scheduled factor.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings because the WCJ did not adequately consider the applicant's post-injury earning capacity as required by Ogilvie I and Ogilvie II. The WCJ failed to adequately explain the calculation of the applicant's earnings loss and did not provide substantial medical evidence supporting her inability to work. The Board requires further development of the record, particularly medical opinions on work capacity, before a complete Ogilvie analysis can be performed. This includes assessing whether the earning loss is industrially caused and weighing the adjusted DFEC factor against the scheduled factor.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.