The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
QMERelied upon · pain medicine
Recommended additional QME/AME in neurology to address post-concussion headaches, post-concussion syndrome, and closed head injury.
Dr. Chow's July 21, 2025 supplemental report recommended an additional neurology panel to address unresolved neurological issues.
From the decision · page 6On July 21, 2025, Dr. Chow issued a supplemental report responding to additional
questions posed to him by applicant's counsel, including the following specific question: "Please
state whether you can address the Applicant's head/headaches or if the Applicant should have an
additional QME/AME in the specialty of neurology, for the claimed head injury/headaches..."
(Joint Exhibit 101, at p. 2.) In response to same, Dr. Chow requested the parties schedule a
AMEPartially credited · neuropsychology
Did not opine that an additional neurology panel was needed; diagnosed possible mild neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury.
The WCJ gave great weight to Dr. Munday's opinion but noted neurology and neuropsychology are different specialties and Dr. Munday did not recommend an additional neurology panel.
From the decision · page 8Thus, while the WCJ found good cause for the issuance of such an order at that time, and
we cannot locate a timely objection to the order, and the matter proceeded to trial on October 21,
2025 on the issue of the additional panels. The WCJ's subsequent F&O denying a panel in the
field of neurology relied on the reporting of neuropsychologist agreed medical evaluator (AME),
Claude S. Munday, Ph.D., as the basis upon which to deny applicant's request, noting that as an
AME, Dr. Munday's opinions are given great weight, and that Dr. Munday never opined that an
additional neurology panel is needed. While Dr. Munday was selected as an AME in the field of
neuropsychology, neurology and neuropsychology are different specialties though they may treat
the same body parts, head/brain.
PTPRelied upon
Reported applicant's headaches, supporting the claim of neurological injury.
The parties stipulated that Dr. Lin, the primary treating physician, reported headaches, supporting the claim of neurological injury despite defendant's objection to industrial causation.
From the decision · page 8and the unrebutted testimony of the applicant, applicant is suffering from physical manifestations
of a head injury including mild posterior superior scalp swelling/hematoma and mild edema at the
left posterior superior scalp, as well as headaches. Further, at trial, the parties stipulated that
primary treating physician, Eduardo Lin, M.D., reported applicant's headaches, although
defendant objected as to whether the headaches were industrial in nature. (Minutes, October 21,
2025, at p. 2:15-17.)