Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Nathan opined the applicant is permanently impaired from returning to the open labor market and supports the addition method for combining impairments.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical opinion provided a reasonably articulated basis for the total disability rating and was relied upon by the panel.
From the decision · page 4"In considering the applicant as a whole and her
multisystem problemsand her diminished capacity to
work in the open labor market, it is my impression the
applicant is permanently impaired from returning to the
open labor market. The applicant's overall impairment
with her multiple body parts because of their synergistic
effect upon one another should be added together in
order to obtain a more accurate total disability rating. I
would recommend that the applicant undergo
vocational assessment to determine her level of
functionality in the open labor market." (Joint Exhibit
EE, page 28, first paragraph)
The applicant was found to be a very credible witness by the WCJ.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility supported the acceptance of the applicant's testimony and medical evidence leading to the finding of total permanent disability.
From the decision · page 6The undersigned found the applicant to be a very credible witness. The psychiatric
Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Nathan found the applicant to be 100% permanently
totally disabled, regardless of the addition method for her disabilities.
Notwithstanding, the Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Nathan recommended the
addition of the ratings, which equates to 100%. In the opinion of the undersigned,
Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Nathan provided a reasonably articulated medical
basis for his opinion that the addition method will result in a more accurate rating
of the applicant's level of disability. The undersigned finds no good reason to find
the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion unpersuasive.
The defendant did not provide sufficient substantial evidence or a rebuttal vocational report to challenge the vocational expert's opinion that the applicant is not able to sustain gainful employment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of rebuttal evidence favored the applicant's claim of permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 6The Petitioner further asserts that the applicant's vocational expert incorrectly
categorized the applicant's job history, and the defendants contend that the
orthopedic work restrictions are not so limiting as to preclude the applicant from
reasonable vocational rehabilitation. However, the defendant did not obtain a
rebuttal vocational report, or provide sufficient substantial evidence to support its
assertions.