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.
QMERejected · orthopedic
Rated knee impairment based on arthritis and reduced cartilage intervals but did not provide an Almaraz/Guzman analysis; opinion not substantial evidence for knee disability or apportionment.
Did not provide an Almaraz/Guzman analysis explaining why a strict Guides rating does not accurately reflect applicant's disability.
From the decision · page 7Workers' Compensation
Appeals Board (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].) However, to properly rate
an injured worker's disability by applying an Almaraz/Guzman analysis, the doctor is expected to
1) provide a strict rating per the Guides, 2) explain why the strict rating does not accurately reflect
the applicant's disability, 3) provide an alternative rating using the four corners of the Guides, and
4) explain why that alternative rating more accurately reflects applicant's level of disability.
(Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th
808, at 828-829 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].) Dr. Einbund did not provide an Almaraz/Guzman
analysis explaining why a strict Guides rating does not accurately reflect applicant's disability,
and therefore his opinion is not substantial evidence regarding applicant's disability.
QMERejected · orthopedic
Rated knee disability based on knee flexion contracture and found no impairment rating for arthritis; report not substantial evidence on permanent disability or apportionment.
Did not diagnose or address reduced cartilage interval; inconsistent with Guides Table 17-31; report not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 8(Def. Exh. BB, p. 69, record review) but he did not diagnose or otherwise address the reduced
cartilage interval in his report. Absent a discussion of that condition as it pertains to applicant's
disability, Dr. Danzig's report is not substantial evidence on the issue of permanent disability.
QMERelied upon · neurology
Diagnosed sleep disorder secondary to nonrestorative sleep; report found substantial evidence supporting 3% rating for sleep disorder.
Report based on patient sleep history, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Fatigue Severity Scale; no contradictory evidence in record; WCJ found report substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 6Dr. Nudleman gave the applicant a 3% rating based upon the evidence from his
examination of the applicant including an Epworth study, applicant's patient
sleep history, fatigue severity scale and his responses to questions regarding his
activities of daily living. I considered Dr. Nudleman's reporting as a whole
and its entirety, it was predicated on specific factors enumerated by Dr.
Nudleman. I find this evidence relevant and adequate to support Dr. Nudleman's
conclusion regarding an assignment of disability. I find Dr. Nudleman's
reporting to be substantial evidence.
(Report, p. 4.)