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 WCJ's reliance on Dr. Thompson's impairment ratings was affirmed as substantial evidence, but his apportionment findings were found insufficiently explained, leading to an unapportioned 25% permanent disability award based on Dr. Thompson's ratings.
From the decision · page 2disability based on Dr. Thompson's impairment ratings. We thus grant reconsideration, and issue
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Thompson's impairment ratings were found more persuasive than Dr. Kupfer's by the WCJ and the Board.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to reliance on Dr. Thompson's ratings for the permanent disability award.
From the decision · page 2for us to reject the WCJ's determination that the opinions of Dr. Thompson were more persuasive
Dr. Thompson's apportionment explanation was insufficient to support apportionment.