ADJ17444677 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED

Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Joint Findings and Award issued on December 20, 2023

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.

ApportionmentDefendant prevailedright shoulder · right wrist · right elbow · right ribs

The WCJ found Dr. McCoy's medical reports to be substantial medical evidence and more persuasive than Dr. Bell's reports, supporting the apportionment and permanent disability findings.

From the decision · page 6The crux of petitioner's argument is that the undersigned WCJ should have relied upon Dr. Bell's QME reports instead of Dr. McCoy's QME reports because Dr. Bell's reports constitute substantial medical evidence and Dr. McCoy's do not. Petition, page 1, lines 24 thru 26; page 2, lines] thru 2. However, Petitioner incorrectly states that the undersigned WCJ found Dr. Bell's reports "non substantial medical evidence with regard to causation." Petition, page 4, lines 19 thru 23. There was no such finding by the WCJ. The undersigned WCJ only found Dr. McCoy's reporting to be more persuasive than Dr. Bell's reporting, not that Dr. Bell's reporting was not substantial medical evidence.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

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.

PTPNot substantial evidence

Found applicant permanent and stationary as of April 12, 2021; issued WPI for left shoulder, not involved in these cases; unaware of 2017 injury.

From the decision · page 4Dr. Petrofsky issued a report dated April 12, 2021. (Joint Exh. E.) In her report, Dr. Petrofsky found the applicant permanent and stationary as of the date of her report, but thereafter issued a whole person impairment (WPI) for the left shoulder, a body part not at issue in either case herein. (Id. at page 7.) Dr. Petrofsky did not review any medical reports prior to May 24, 2019, and it appears she was unaware of the 2017 injury. (Id. at page 5.)

QMERelied upon

Found two injuries on July 27, 2017 and May 14, 2019; based on MRIs and medical history; apportioned 80% to 2017 injury and 20% to 2019 injury; found applicant permanent and stationary with 5% WPI for right shoulder.

Dr. McCoy's reports were found thorough, consistent, and objective, providing substantial medical evidence for apportionment and permanent disability.

From the decision · page 5The applicant was initially evaluated by Dr. McCoy on May 16, 2023 for the 2017 injury (report dated May 19 2023). (Joint Exh. B.) A supplemental report issued by Dr. McCoy on August 15, 2023. (Joint Exh. A.) Dr. McCoy confirmed his original findings in his supplemental report. Dr. McCoy reported that the applicant sustained an injury on July 27, 2017 and on May 14, 2019. (Joint Exh. B, page 11.) Dr. McCoy based his finding of two injuries, in part, on the fact that the applicant returned to work after the 2017 injury but was not able to do so after the 2019 injury which resulted in necessary shoulder surgery. (Joint Exh. B, page 3.) Additionally, MRIs taken before and after the May 14, 2019 injury showed objective findings supporting a new injury had occurred. (Id.) Dr. McCoy found the applicant permanent and stationary, provided a 5% WPI for applicant's right shoulder, and apportioned 80% to the July 27, 2017 injury and 20% to the May 14, 2019 injury. (Id. at page 12.)

QMERejected

Attributed 100% of symptoms to 2017 injury; did not fully discuss progressive MRI changes; less persuasive due to contradictions and lack of detailed diagnostic discussion.

Dr. Bell's reports were less persuasive and not relied upon due to contradictions and failure to discuss diagnostics in depth.

From the decision · page 7Dr. Bell's reporting is less persuasive due to contradictions in his reporting and failure to discuss the diagnostics in depth. In his August 26, 2022 report, Dr. Bell focuses his causation argument on the applicant telling him that he did not have a "specific injury" on May 14, 2019, but thereafter documents right shoulder and upper extremity symptoms while applicant was performing work on that day. (Joint Exh. D, page 20.)

ADJ17444677 · March 8, 2024

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