What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied, affirming the WCJ's findings and award.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Joint Findings of Fact & Joint Award issued by the WCJ on September 8, 2022, which found permanent disability percentages for two industrial low back injuries.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ's reliance on QME Dr. Friedman's reports was upheld as substantial evidence, while AME Dr. Angerman's reports were found not to be based on an adequate medical history and thus not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 4Exh. A2, p. 2.) Although he repeatedly told the parties that he needed to review the medical records, as noted above, Dr. Angerman was not provided those records to review. Thus, his opinions are not based upon an adequate medical history, and in turn, are not substantial evidence. Regarding the reports from QME Dr. Friedman, it is well settled that the relevant and considered opinions of one physician, though inconsistent with other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence and that the Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is "based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess." (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525, 529].) Applicant argues that Dr. Friedman's opinions as to the issue of impairment "do not correlate with the reviewed diagnostic study [lumbar MRI]." (Petition, p. 4.) It is important to note that pursuant to the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (AMA Guides):