What the panel ordered
The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision except it rescinded the appointment of Dr. Angerman as a medical evaluator and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the medical record from Drs. Sobol and Berman.
The Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ decision dated July 19, 2001, and reassigned the case to the Board as a whole for an en banc decision on the issue of further developing the medical record.
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 concluded that the preferred procedure for further development of the medical record is to first seek supplemental opinions from previously reporting physicians, then consider an agreed medical evaluator (AME), and finally appoint a medical examiner if necessary. The Board rescinded the appointment of Dr. Angerman and returned the matter to the trial level for further development from Drs. Sobol and Berman.
From the decision · page 11 II \VORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD