PTPGiven great weight · orthopedics
Found 35% permanent disability based on loss of range of motion and strength deficit in bilateral shoulders and 5% whole person impairment for cervical spine muscle spasm; gave detailed reasoning supporting impairment ratings and disagreed with Dr. Inman's lower rating.
His report was found to be substantial medical evidence and given great weight by the WCJ, supporting the applicant's permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 3applicant, while employed on February 27, 2014, as a Senior Operator,
Occupational Group Number 221, by Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., sustained injury arising
out of and in the course of employment to her neck, bilateral shoulders, back and psyche. At the
time of the injury, the employer's workers' compensation carrier was Travelers Property Casualty
Company of America. Applicant's primary treating physician is Dr. Jeffrey Bernicker. Applicant
also presented to Dr. Wayne Inman in the capacity of the Panel QME. Parties proceeded to trial
on December 13, 2023, with the undersigned issuing a Findings and Award on January 26, 2024.
Defendant filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration on February 6, 2024.
QMERejected · orthopedics
Provided a lower permanent disability rating than Dr. Bernicker, questioned the use of strength deficit in impairment rating, and deferred to the trier of fact to decide on manual muscle testing accuracy; did not find muscle spasm in cervical spine at evaluation times.
His report was found not to be substantial medical evidence by the WCJ due to incomplete assessment and failure to address pain add-on; his lower rating was rejected in favor of Dr. Bernicker's.
From the decision · page 5It is well established that any decision by the appeals board or a WCJ "must be supported by
substantial evidence in the light of the entire record."1 It has been well established under California
Workers' Compensation law that an award for benefits must be supported by substantial evidence.2
The Appeals Board may not blindly accept a medical opinion that lacks a solid underlying basis
and must carefully judge its weight and credibility.3 In order to constitute substantial evidence, a
medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability.4 Medical reports are not
substantial evidence if they are known to be erroneous, or if they are based on facts no longer
germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations or on incorrect legal theories.5 A
medical report is not substantial evidence unless it offers the reasoning behind the physician's
opinion, not merely his or her conclusions.6 In addition to the reasoning already given in the
Opinion on Decision for the reliance on Dr.