What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant after trial decision on injury to bilateral eyes; other issues deferred
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.
The record lacked substantial medical evidence to support injury to the eyes; the QME Dr. Macy's report was found thorough and persuasive, concluding no evidence of injury to the eyes.
From the decision · page 4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.