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.
secondary_treaterRejected · Internal Medicine
Found to have significantly flawed and less persuasive medical reporting compared to PQMEs.
The court found Dr. Majcher's medical reporting to be significantly flawed and less persuasive than the PQMEs' reports.
From the decision · page 8III
DISCUSSION
The court finds the medical reporting of the QMEs Dr. Hanani and Dr. Caren, and
Secondary Consulting Physician Aminian to be substantial, well-reasoned, based on reasonable
medical probability, and persuasive. The court finds the medical reporting of Drs. Haronian and
Majcher to be significantly flawed and consequentially less persuasive.
QMERelied upon · Orthopedics
Found no new and further disability from the specific industrial injury; no injury AOE/COE to low back and shoulders; his reports were substantial, reliable, well-reasoned, and persuasive.
The court found Dr. Hannani's medical reporting to be substantial, reliable, and persuasive, and relied upon it to deny reopening.
From the decision · page 4I
INTRODUCTION
As noted in this court's Opinion on Decision, the "...fulcrum issue was whether Applicant
suffered new and further disability such that he is entitled to reopen this case..." (Opinion On
Decision 10/20/2023, page 5.) Upon this fulcrum issue, the court determined Applicant bore the
burden of proof and that Applicant did not sustain his burden of proving a right to reopen. (Opinion
On Decision 10/20/2023, page 7.) In reaching this determination, the court relied upon the findings
of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluators Kambiz Hannani (Orthopedics) and Jeffrey Caren (Internal
Medicine). The court found the medical reporting of Drs. Caren and Hannani to be substantial,
reliable, well-reasoned and persuasive. Drs. Caren and Hannani concluded the Applicant did not
suffer new and further disability.
At trial, the parties stipulated that Drs.
QMERelied upon · Internal Medicine
Found no new and further disability; his medical reporting was substantial, reliable, well-reasoned, and persuasive.
The court found Dr. Caren's medical reporting to be substantial, reliable, and persuasive, and relied upon it to deny reopening.
From the decision · page 4I
INTRODUCTION
As noted in this court's Opinion on Decision, the "...fulcrum issue was whether Applicant
suffered new and further disability such that he is entitled to reopen this case..." (Opinion On
Decision 10/20/2023, page 5.) Upon this fulcrum issue, the court determined Applicant bore the
burden of proof and that Applicant did not sustain his burden of proving a right to reopen. (Opinion
On Decision 10/20/2023, page 7.) In reaching this determination, the court relied upon the findings
of Panel Qualified Medical Evaluators Kambiz Hannani (Orthopedics) and Jeffrey Caren (Internal
Medicine). The court found the medical reporting of Drs. Caren and Hannani to be substantial,
reliable, well-reasoned and persuasive. Drs. Caren and Hannani concluded the Applicant did not
suffer new and further disability.
At trial, the parties stipulated that Drs.
PTPRejected
Found to have significantly flawed and less persuasive medical reporting compared to PQMEs.
The court found Dr. Haronian's medical reporting to be significantly flawed and less persuasive than the PQMEs' reports.
From the decision · page 8III
DISCUSSION
The court finds the medical reporting of the QMEs Dr. Hanani and Dr. Caren, and
Secondary Consulting Physician Aminian to be substantial, well-reasoned, based on reasonable
medical probability, and persuasive. The court finds the medical reporting of Drs. Haronian and
Majcher to be significantly flawed and consequentially less persuasive.