ADJ10915228 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted in part to amend Findings and Award; otherwise denied; May 28, 2021 Findings and Award affirmed as amended; jurisdiction reserved on future medical treatment and attorney fees

Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant challenging Findings and Award; WCJ report reviewed and adopted by Board

Read the official decision →

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.

ApportionmentApplicant prevailedbilateral wrists

The Board found the apportionment opinion by Dr. Fortanasce conclusory and lacking substantial medical evidence, thus disallowing apportionment.

From the decision · page 4Defendant next argues that the undersigned erred by disallowing the apportionment indicated by Dr. Fortanasce. Dr. Fortanasce found apportionment of 90% to industrial causation and 10% to "...non-industrial factors which predispose her to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome including activities of daily living and the degeneration and inflammatory [sic] that occurs due to the aging process." (Exhibit B, page 4).

AOE/COE

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

There was a scrivener's error in the original Findings and Award listing bilateral hands instead of bilateral wrists as injured body parts.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The Board amended the Findings and Award to correctly reflect injury to bilateral wrists (carpal tunnel syndrome).

From the decision · page 3Defendant first contends an error in the Court's finding of injury to applicant's bilateral hands instead of bilateral [wrists (CTS)]. Review of the Findings and Award reveals a scrivener's error in Finding number 1 that indicates bilateral hands as an injured body part instead of applicant's bilateral [wrists (CTS)]. The Board is asked to amend the Findings and Award to substitute bilateral [wrists (CTS)] in place of bilateral hands. No injury was found to applicant's hands as is indicated in Finding number 2.

Dr. Fortanasce's apportionment opinion was conclusory and lacked substantial medical evidence.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This led the Board to disallow apportionment and favor the applicant on that issue.

From the decision · page 4The undersigned found that Dr. Fortanasce's opinion on apportionment is conclusory and fails to point to what non-industrial factors predisposed the applicant to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome and further fails to be substantial medical evidence in that it fails to adequately address the "how and why" aspect of non-industrial apportionment.

Diagnostic testing showed worsening of carpal tunnel syndrome despite surgery and conservative treatment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the permanent disability rating and the finding of industrial injury to bilateral wrists.

From the decision · page 5Defendant's final argument is that the rating provided by Dr. Fortanasce is incorrect in that his rating for carpal tunnel syndrome incorrectly uses a grade 3 sensory deficit whereas a grade 4 deficit was more appropriate. Dr. Fortanasce opined that as applicable to Table 16-10 of the AMA Guides2, "...Grade III is chosen due to the distorted superficial tactile sensibility, abnormal sensation or slight pain that inference with some activities..." and utilized a 50% modifier from the range of 26-60. (Exhibit A, page 3). In his report of November 13, 2019 he indicated that "Post-surgery EMG/Nerve Conduction Study have shown worsening of her carpal tunnel syndrome in spite of conservative treatment and surgery." (Exhibit B, page 2). Diagnostic testing from 2017 to 2019 also indicated deterioration of applicant's median nerve neuropathy. It was also noted in reporting of August 8, 2019 that comparison of the diagnostic studies indicated applicant's right wrist was "consistent with extremely severe right carpal tunnel syndrome which would continue to explain the complaints of paresthesia in the right hand and fingertips. (Exhibit C, page 8).

ADJ10915228 · August 18, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page