The agreed medical evaluators' reports, including Dr. Raskin and Dr. Danzig, were found to be substantial and persuasive medical evidence.
Favours Defendant prevailed
These reports supported the denial of new and further permanent disability and confirmed the need for treatment of dermatological injury without additional impairment.
From the decision · page 5The report was reviewed and appeared to comply with Labor Code § 4628, including a complete
history, reviewing and summarizing medical records and composing and drafting the conclusions
of the report. Dr. Raskin notes his compliance with § 139.2U) and 5307.6. Dr. Raskin appeared
to have spent time interacting with the Applicant in person, to obtain photographs of his skin
condition and, based on the Applicant's testimony and the information in the report, Dr. Raskin
did ask the applicant questions and obtain responses. The need for an AME in dermatology was
necessary specifically because the determinations of Dr. Alaiti and Dr. Aurora differed as to the
type of condition, and as to causation. Most significantly, they seemed to be describing several
separate conditions, a sensitivity condition which the Applicant appears to have had since the
1990's, the contact dermatitis, which developed after surgery in 2010, and which resolved,
followed by the folliculitis, which is recurrent. This was confirmed with a detailed explanation by
Dr.
Applicant's stipulated permanent impairment rating of 70% from 2007 remained accurate with no increase found.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the denial of increased permanent disability.
From the decision · page 6Dr. Stanley Majcher, determined that the Applicant has not sustained an industrially related
internal injury in his report of October 19, 2016, and Dr. Bernard Raskin did not find the Applicant
to have sustained permanent impairment from the contact dermatitis, determined to be industrially
related. Although Applicant submitted a vocational report, it was cursory. It did not include review
of most of the medical reports, or include a labor market survey, or fully address the applicant's
full range of skills, to determine if there were suitable alternatives for potential employment. Based
on the lack of detail, it was found not to be substantial evidence. The medical evidence reviewed,
indicated that the Applicant's impairment, assessed in conjunction with the Stipulation With
Request For Award in 2007, stipulated to 70% permanent impairment remained accurate, therefore
no increase in the level of permanent impairment was found. A need for additional medical
treatment, to treat the contact dermatitis was found.