The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
AMENot substantial evidence · neurology
80% industrial, 20% non-industrial apportionment of headache disability based on prior personal and family history of headache
Failed to describe prior headache history in detail, identify nature of pre-existing headaches, or explain how pre-existing headaches caused permanent disability at time of evaluation
From the decision · page 4We also find unresolved issues pertaining to apportionment. Dr. Fink, the AME in neurology, opined in his report dated January 22, 2019 that applicant “does have a prior personal and family history of headache … but alleges [her] industrial injuries aggravated the baseline complaint.
AMENot substantial evidence · psychiatry
70% industrial, 30% non-industrial apportionment of psychiatric disability based on recent stressors including father's death, contentious inheritance, and uterine cancer
Apportioned to temporary stressors rather than permanent factors; cancer treatment ended November 2015 and never returned
From the decision · page 5We have similar concerns about the apportionment opinion of Dr. Stanwyck, the AME in psychiatry. Dr. Stanwyck’s opinion on apportionment dates back to his report of December 28, 2015. In that report, Dr.
PTPRecord developed further
Diagnosed thoracic outlet syndrome; reported 75% grip loss in both hands
WCJ relied on this report for rating but failed to include thoracic outlet syndrome factors
From the decision · page 3The WCJ’s rating instructions dated December 30, 2020 show that to obtain a recommended rating for applicant’s upper extremity disability, the WCJ relied upon the objective and subjective factors of disability set forth in Dr. Montgomery’s treatment report of February 1, 2016. (Exhibit 4, p.
PTPRecord developed further
Treating report used for spinal disability rating
WCJ relied on this report for rating but unresolved issues remain regarding spinal disability factors
From the decision · page 3We find a similar unresolved issue in connection with the WCJ’s reliance upon Dr. Moelleken’s February 19, 2016 treating report to rate applicant’ spinal disability. (Exhibit 1, p.
otherNot reached
Vocational opinion justifying permanent and total disability on account of orthopedic disability alone; no vocational apportionment
Applicant alleges Dr. Van Winkle's opinion justifies finding of permanent and total disability; WCAB did not reach this issue
From the decision · page 1Applicant further alleges that the vocational opinion of her expert, Dr. Van Winkle, justifies a finding of permanent and total disability on account of her orthopedic disability alone,