What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Preponderance of evidence supports that applicant's complaints to neck, shoulders, and upper extremities were related to employment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the finding of injury AOE/COE to these body parts.
From the decision · page 3[T]he preponderance of the evidence supports the findings of Drs. Fisher and
Tabibian that Applicant's complaints to the neck, shoulders and upper
extremities were related to the seven years of employment with the Defendant
[Anthony International Inc.].
(Report, p. 4.)
As to the issue of temporary disability, the permanent and stationary report from Dr.
Uwaydah summarized the reports of applicant's medical treatment between 2003 and 2006. The
doctor's summary of the treatment reports (App. Exh. 3, pp. 4 § 10) indicates the applicant was
temporarily disabled during the period for which the WCJ awarded temporary disability indemnity
benefits. Travelers did not offer evidence at trial to rebut the WCJ's opinion regarding the period
that applicant was temporarily totally disabled and we see no basis for disturbing the F&A.
Finally, having researched the issue extensively, we find no statutory or case law that
supports Travelers' argument that Dr. Uwaydah's report should excluded from evidence and/or
that his report "can not be relied upon." (Petition, p. 7.)
Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.
Dr. Uwaydah's summary of treatment reports indicated applicant was temporarily disabled during the awarded period.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the award of temporary total disability benefits.
From the decision · page 3[T]he preponderance of the evidence supports the findings of Drs. Fisher and
Tabibian that Applicant's complaints to the neck, shoulders and upper
extremities were related to the seven years of employment with the Defendant
[Anthony International Inc.].
(Report, p. 4.)
As to the issue of temporary disability, the permanent and stationary report from Dr.
Uwaydah summarized the reports of applicant's medical treatment between 2003 and 2006. The
doctor's summary of the treatment reports (App. Exh. 3, pp. 4 § 10) indicates the applicant was
temporarily disabled during the period for which the WCJ awarded temporary disability indemnity
benefits. Travelers did not offer evidence at trial to rebut the WCJ's opinion regarding the period
that applicant was temporarily totally disabled and we see no basis for disturbing the F&A.
Finally, having researched the issue extensively, we find no statutory or case law that
supports Travelers' argument that Dr. Uwaydah's report should excluded from evidence and/or
that his report "can not be relied upon." (Petition, p. 7.)
Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.
No evidence was offered by Travelers to rebut the WCJ's opinion on temporary total disability period.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of rebuttal supported affirming the temporary disability award.
From the decision · page 3[T]he preponderance of the evidence supports the findings of Drs. Fisher and
Tabibian that Applicant's complaints to the neck, shoulders and upper
extremities were related to the seven years of employment with the Defendant
[Anthony International Inc.].
(Report, p. 4.)
As to the issue of temporary disability, the permanent and stationary report from Dr.
Uwaydah summarized the reports of applicant's medical treatment between 2003 and 2006. The
doctor's summary of the treatment reports (App. Exh. 3, pp. 4 § 10) indicates the applicant was
temporarily disabled during the period for which the WCJ awarded temporary disability indemnity
benefits. Travelers did not offer evidence at trial to rebut the WCJ's opinion regarding the period
that applicant was temporarily totally disabled and we see no basis for disturbing the F&A.
Finally, having researched the issue extensively, we find no statutory or case law that
supports Travelers' argument that Dr. Uwaydah's report should excluded from evidence and/or
that his report "can not be relied upon." (Petition, p. 7.)
Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.