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.
AMERelied upon · orthopedic
Found no new and further orthopedic disability; report met substantial medical evidence standard despite no additional diagnostic testing.
Thorough history, evaluation, and review of medical evidence; findings not based on speculation; deposition confirmed opinion.
From the decision · page 14Here, Dr. Craemer took a thorough history, conducted a thorough evaluation and reviewed
the medical evidence provided. His deposition was taken and he did not change his opinion. Dr.
Craemer's findings were not based on surmise, speculation, conjecture or guess. The court in this
matter, finds that the AME report of Dr. Craemer meets the test for substantial medical evidence.
PTPRelied upon
Found applicant permanent and stationary in 2013 with no new and further disability.
Interim reports showed no change in condition within five years.
From the decision · page 6Here, applicant's date of injury is November 13, 2008, and applicant must establish a
"demonstrable change in condition" prior to the expiration of the five-year statutory period on
November 13, 2013.
secondary_treaterRejected · internal medicine
Opined chronic pain aggravated diabetes but reports lacked complete record review and did not establish causation within five years.
Reports lacked review of private diabetes records and did not address other medical conditions affecting diabetes.
From the decision · page 7With respect to applicant's assertion of aggravation of her diabetic condition, we observe
that neither the reporting of Dr. Zlotolow nor that of Dr. Borsada provided an assessment of
whether the alleged change in applicant's condition transpired within five years from the original
date of injury. Further, we agree with the WCJ's observation that any reporting addressing the
alleged aggravation of applicant's diabetes would need to address applicant's other concurrent
medical conditions, including her nonindustrial brain surgery, right knee surgery, and thyroid
condition. (Report, at p. 6.) Accordingly, we find the reporting of Drs. Zlotolow and Borsada fail
to establish a causal connection between applicant's industrial injury and the claimed need for new
treatment, or that the need for new treatment arose within the five years of the original date of
injury of November 13, 2008. Applicant has not met the burden of establishing a new and further
disability, arising within five years of the date of injury. (Cal. Lab. Code § 5410.)
QMERejected · internal medicine
Report did not establish causal connection or timely new disability for diabetes aggravation claim.
Lack of assessment of timing and other medical conditions affecting diabetes; incomplete record review.
From the decision · page 7With respect to applicant's assertion of aggravation of her diabetic condition, we observe
that neither the reporting of Dr. Zlotolow nor that of Dr. Borsada provided an assessment of
whether the alleged change in applicant's condition transpired within five years from the original
date of injury. Further, we agree with the WCJ's observation that any reporting addressing the
alleged aggravation of applicant's diabetes would need to address applicant's other concurrent
medical conditions, including her nonindustrial brain surgery, right knee surgery, and thyroid
condition. (Report, at p. 6.) Accordingly, we find the reporting of Drs. Zlotolow and Borsada fail
to establish a causal connection between applicant's industrial injury and the claimed need for new
treatment, or that the need for new treatment arose within the five years of the original date of
injury of November 13, 2008. Applicant has not met the burden of establishing a new and further
disability, arising within five years of the date of injury. (Cal. Lab. Code § 5410.)