What the panel ordered
The WCAB rescinded the July 28, 2021 Findings and Order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued on July 28, 2021, which found no industrial injury; the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.
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 WCAB found the QME's medical opinion unclear and contradictory regarding whether the applicant's hypertension was an aggravation (new injury) or an exacerbation (not a new injury), and thus not substantial evidence. The WCAB remanded for further proceedings to clarify this issue and to determine applicability of presumption under Labor Code sections 3212.2 and 3212.10.
From the decision · page 7In the instant case, the QME's opinion regarding whether the applicant's current claim for his heart/hypertension is an exacerbation of the prior injuries or an aggravation, and thus a new injury, is unclear. Dr. Acheatel has opined that applicant's hypertension was "a continuation of a previous injury with cumulative involvement since 2005, up until retirement." (Joint Trial Exhibit #1, at p. 7.) In his deposition, Dr. Acheatel testified that it is his medical opinion that applicant's hypertension exacerbated by continuing to work as a correctional officer for defendant. (Joint Trial Exhibit #7, at p. 43.) However, Dr. Acheatel then also testified that applicant's hypertension worsened over time because "his blood pressure was more difficult to control." (Id. at p. 45.) It appears that Dr. Acheatel may misunderstand the legal distinction between an exacerbation and an aggravation. The QME's testimony and reporting is at times, contradictory, and consequently is not substantial medical evidence.