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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was temporarily partially disabled from August 25, 2006, through November 12, 2008, supported by medical evidence and stipulations on employment and earnings.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established applicant's entitlement to temporary partial disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 5Here, QME Dr. Field stated that as of his March 5, 2007 examination of applicant, she had not reached permanent and stationary/maximum medical improvement (P&S/MMI) status. (Joint Exh. 1, p. 10.) AME Dr. Hoy subsequently determined that applicant "was at a point of" being P&S/MMI as of December 2, 2008. (Court Exh. Y, p. 23.) AME Dr. Angerman, stated that he believed applicant's condition had remained P&S/MMI "for rating purposes since she was seen by the prior Agreed Medical Examiner, Dr. Sew Hoy." (Court Exh. Z2, p. 10.)
There was no evidence supporting defendant's claim of prompt investigation and no unreasonable delay in benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed