What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on May 4, 2023
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.
AOE/COEDefendant prevailedback · lumbar
The lien claimant failed to prove injury AOE/COE by substantial medical evidence, as the PQME's and other medical reports were incomplete and lacked adequate reasoning, and the applicant did not testify.
From the decision · page 3Having reviewed Mummaneni's reports, we agree with the WCJ that the PQME's reporting is incomplete and not substantial medical evidence regarding causation. Dr. Mummaneni's discussion regarding cause of disability does not explain his reasoning or analysis for reaching his conclusion of "at least [] 1% causation". Dr. Shen's opinions are not based on pertinent facts, nor are they based on an adequate medical history, and none of the reports set forth the reasoning behind his opinions. Thus, his reports are not substantial evidence upon which a finding of cumulative injury, AOE/COE can be based. Lien claimant presented no additional evidence other than their own reports to support that the injury was industrial in nature. Dr. Andrew Shen issued two reports. (L.C. Exh. 2, March 12, 2019 and December 20, 2018 by Dr. Andrew Shen.) Neither report is a comprehensive med-legal evaluation. Likewise, the reports by applicant's secondary treating physicians: Stanley S. Wong, DAOM L.Ac. (Acupuncturist) (Exh. 4) and Henry Kan, DC (Chiropractor) (Exh. 3) do not constitute comprehensive med-legal evaluations. The applicant was not called to testify. Absent stipulations regarding the alleged injury and the injured body parts, a lien claimant must prove that applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE. "