What the panel ordered
The Board denied Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and affirmed the finding that Applicant sustained an industrial injury causing permanent total (100%) disability.
Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the Board's Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, which was denied by the Board on October 16, 2023.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 12, 2023.
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 Board found that applicant successfully rebutted the scheduled permanent partial disability rating of 45% by showing through vocational expert evidence that she was unable to work or be vocationally rehabilitated, thus warranting a finding of permanent total (100%) disability. The Board rejected the defendant's apportionment argument due to lack of detailed explanation in the medical opinion and the WCJ's prior rejection of apportionment.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.