What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings and Order rescinded and amended to find injury AOE/COE; lien issues deferred.
Petition for Reconsideration granted by the WCAB panel, rescinding the WCJ's Findings and Order and substituting a new Findings and Order.
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/COEApplicant prevailedshoulders · back · wrists · knees
The WCAB found that the QME Dr. Bolling's medical opinion was substantial evidence supporting injury AOE/COE, rejecting the WCJ's prior finding that the QME's opinion was not substantial due to occupational history discrepancies, and granted reconsideration to find injury AOE/COE.
From the decision · page 8Next, we disagree with the WCJ's overly technical reliance on stipulated occupation numbers in order to justify making the determination that applicant's job description in the medical reporting was somehow not credible. Dr. Bolling provided a detailed list of applicant's job duties, and Dr. Bolling was aware that applicant was the manager. Even if applicant was a manager, when she performed the more physical duties, she would have been entitled to a higher occupational variant. Thus, we conclude that the medical reporting by the QME Dr. Bolling is substantial medical evidence and sufficient to find AOE/COE.