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.
Dr. Garland's apportionment opinion lacked explanation of the nature and causation of non-industrial factors, thus not constituting substantial evidence; the Board found 14% permanent disability without apportionment to non-industrial factors.
From the decision · page 2On January 26, 2022, orthopedic AME Dr. Garland evaluated applicant. Dr. Garland examined applicant, took a history, and reviewed the medical record. The doctor diagnosed applicant as having anterolisthesis (vertebral slippage/displacement) of L5 on S1 with radicular pain in her left leg. He said that applicant's condition had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and he assigned 8% whole person impairment. ((Joint Exh. 100, Dr. Garland, January 26, 2022, pp. 8 § 9.) Regarding apportionment, Dr. Garland stated:
From the decision · page 3discretion to allow a credit for overpaid compensation against an award of different species of
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.