What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant made no claim for temporary disability and did not pursue the issue at trial despite opportunities.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The court found no basis for temporary disability benefits and denied the claim accordingly.
From the decision · page 6applicant was not entitled to TD based upon the stipulation by the parties that
the applicant made no claim for such benefit. Because Dr. Navani's one report
failed to review any medical records, and because the applicant failed to provide
any history whatsoever of his extensive back injuries, this court concluded it
could not form the basis for any findings.
PQME Mark Hellner reviewed extensive medical records showing applicant's longstanding preexisting back condition and found no increase in impairment or contribution from the June 23, 2021 injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This medical opinion was the most reliable evidence and supported the denial of permanent disability and further medical treatment.
From the decision · page 4Of significance is that the PQME thereafter reviewed medical records dated
between January 8, 2010 and March 15, 2022 and then issued a supplemental
report dated July 7, 2022 (Exhibit J2). The doctor parses out several reports
between August 17, 2016 and July 5, 2020 and describes these records as
containing "several important points to be noted". (Id. at p. 1). The first report
reviewed is dated August 17, 2016 from Dr. Paulo Murrieta who provides that
the applicant has had "...back pain...ongoing for three years." Thus, the PQME,
after reviewing the records and noting that the applicant has had back pain with
radiculopathy for eight years before his injury at Medline, and now knowing that
the applicant was not candid with him at the time of the initial evaluation,
concluded that the applicant suffered only an exacerbation of his preexisting
condition, had no increase in impairment (and actually had less impairment that
prior to the injury at issue), and that there was no contribution towards his
impairment from the injury at Medline. (Id. at p. 3). At no time did the applicant
seek any further supplemental report or seek to schedule a cross-examination.
Applicant's demeanor at trial was combative and unprofessional, negatively impacting his credibility.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ gave great weight to credibility findings, which supported the denial of the applicant's claims.
From the decision · page 7In the case at bar, the applicant's demeanor at trial left much to be desired. He
slouched excessively and appeared both upset and inconvenienced by the trial
on direct examination. On cross- examination, he became combative with
defense counsel and also to the court, going so far as to use profanity and log off
Lifesize without notice. The court was nevertheless willing to allow the
applicant the full opportunity to continue testifying in the afternoon and put the
morning's difficulties in the past. In the afternoon, he was not combative, he was
clearly annoyed by the defense attorney's questioning as evidenced by his eye-
rolling, whispering under his breath, and continued unprofessional body
language.
Applicant failed to provide accurate history of his extensive preexisting back injuries to physicians, undermining his claims and supporting the PQME's findings.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of candor was central to the WCJ's decision to rely on the PQME's opinion and deny permanent disability and further treatment.
From the decision · page 7After reviewing all evidence, it is clear why. He was not forthcoming with the
physicians, and the lack of candor was the centerpiece of the defendant's
questioning. The applicant did not provide any physician a history that came
even remotely close to his true history of chronic back pain, injuries, disability,
range of motion and clinical evaluations, and treatment throughout the years.
The records offered into evidence from Doctors Medical Center of Modesto
(Exhibit A) reflect a longstanding history of back pain that is directly relevant
to the issues of permanent disability and the need for future medical treatment.