The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
otherRelied upon · Medical Doctor
Addressed head injury alleged in one of the cases; medical evidence considered in the context of industrial causation issue.
Medical reports of Dr. Merman addressed head injury and were considered relevant to industrial causation.
otherRelied upon · Chiropractor
Conducted detailed clinical examination concluding injuries to various orthopedic body parts; found some positive findings supporting industrial injury despite not reviewing diagnostic tests and prior records; applicant's credible testimony supported her findings.
WCJ found applicant's credible testimony and Dr. Arroyo's clinical findings persuasive despite some report limitations.
From the decision · page 7In her report, Susan Arroyo, D.C. took a detailed clinical examination of the applicant to
conclude that he sustained injuries to various orthopedic body parts. Petitioner is accurate in saying
that she did not review diagnostic testing and prior medical records as she requested. Petitioner is
also correct that she reports that applicant denied any prior industrial injuries, when he is fact has
had prior industrial claims. The WCJ took this into consideration but found the applicant's
credibility as to the physically demanding nature of his job, as substantiated by the petitioner's
witness, when combined with Dr. Arroyo's clinical examination which showed some positive
otherRelied upon · Medical Doctor
Conducted clinical examination with similar results to Dr. Arroyo; found industrially related injury and recommended further medical care; applicant reported no prior industrial injuries.
WCJ found Dr. Harrison's report supportive of industrial causation and consistent with applicant's testimony.
From the decision · page 8The report of Dr. Harrison also conducts a clinical examination of the applicant with similar
results as those found in Dr. Arroyo's Report, (See Dr. Harrison, Pages 6 to 8). He also indicated
that the applicant reported no prior industrial injuries and requested review of further medical
reports. Like Dr. Arroyo, he found an industrially related injury, a report of onset of pain in 2017
as did Dr. Arroyo (Pager 2), reported detail job duties (Page 3). He found industrial causation and
recommended further medical care (Page10).
otherRejected
PQME report found no industrial causation for orthopedic strain/sprain; noted lack of diagnostic tests and investigative reports requested but not provided; did not conclusively find applicant not credible.
WCJ found PQME report insufficient to overcome applicant's testimony and medical reports supporting industrial causation.
From the decision · page 8In Dr. Ram's Deposition of 8/24/20, EAMS ID 42118934, page 16 lines 19 to 24, the doctor
is indicating there is no industrial causation for the various orthopedic strain/sprain. Yet he
elaborates further on pages 16 line 25, to page 17 lines 1 to 9, where is testifies "I am not going to
tell the patient was telling lies. If he is saying `I cannot move the neck, I cannot move the back." I
see there is a problem, so I tell you." Although the language is somewhat unclear, he seems to be
saying he cannot say whether the applicant is credible or not, and that this is outside his area of
expertise, a point he made in the subsequent supplemental report dated 3/16/22 EAMS ID
42118933. At pages 2 to 3 that he said did not receive the diagnostic tests he had repeatedly
requested, nor did he receive any investigative reports he had previously requested, and therefore
his opinion had not changed. This reporting appears to suggest that the lack of evidence requested
but not provided was a factor in his conclusions, leaving open the possibility that the review of
such records could have impacted his ultimate conclusion. The WCJ did not find this evidence