What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration of the July 2, 2024 Joint Findings of Fact and Award
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.
ApportionmentDefendant prevailedlumbar spine
The WCJ found Dr. Graham's apportionment findings were speculative, lacking reasoning, and adopted Dr. Klassen's analysis without basis, thus not substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 4In the instant case, in his initial July 13, 2023 report, Dr. Graham indicated that there "will be apportionment" for applicant's lumbar spine given "anticipated degenerative changes." (Joint Exhibit AA, AME Report of Dr. Graham, July 13, 2023, p. 10, emphasis added.) In making this determination, it appears that Dr. Graham had not yet reviewed the medical file in this case. In his subsequent July 24, 2023 report, Dr. Graham found 50% apportionment to the lumbar spine based upon applicant's "preexisting condition." (Joint Exhibit BB, AME Report of Dr. Graham, July 24, 2023, p. 3.) No further explanation was provided. In his final January 2, 2024 report, Dr. Graham explained that his apportionment findings were written "to comport with Dr. Klassen's analysis." (Joint Exhibit CC, AME Report of Dr. Graham, January 2, 2024, p. 3.) Ultimately, Dr. Graham's findings are not only speculative but lacking in reasoning. It appears that rather than provide his own opinions, Dr. Graham opted instead to adopt those of Dr. Klassen with no basis or rationale. We therefore agree with the WCJ that Dr. Graham has failed to provide a "comprehensive explanation" for apportionment and as such, his apportionment findings "do not amount to substantial medical evidence." (Report, pp. 7-8.)