What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal denied.
Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on November 17, 2023, denied by the Appeals Board panel on January 31, 2024.
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.
Medical treatment / UR / IMRApplicant prevailedhead · circulatory system
The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the neurological QME evaluation being conducted, and that the QME report from Dr. Esfahane was not substantial evidence because he lacked medical records to review. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to the neurology QME evaluation.
From the decision · page 3Based on our review of the record, it appears that the parties engaged in proper discovery procedures regarding both injury claims until defendant received the report from QME Dr. Esfahane stating that the June 13, 2022 dog bite did not cause applicant's June 20, 2022 stroke. (Def. Exh. F, p. 15.) Defendant then canceled the scheduled neurological examination by QME Dr. Maasumi. Without addressing the issue of whether defendant's conduct was appropriate, it must be noted that Dr. Esfahane specifically stated he was not provided any medical records and/or test reports to review.(Def. Exh. F, p. 12.) Thus, his report is not substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Also, there is no evidence in the record indicating that a neurological examination/report would not enable the WCJ to determine whether applicant's employment was a cause of applicant's stroke.