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.
AMEGiven great weight · psychiatry
Re-evaluation confirming psychiatric injury and occupational feasibility, agreeing with other AMEs' findings.
The WCJ gave great weight to the supplemental psychiatric evaluation.
From the decision · page 5He changed his opinion regarding applicant's ability to return to the workforce, and agreed
with the findings of the other AMEs, stating: "I do believe based on the AME reports in
Orthopedics and Internal Medicine that the consultee is occupationally feasible." (Ex. FF, p. 15.)
AMERelied upon · psychiatry
Diagnosed depressive disorder, somatic symptom disorder with pain, sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction; assessed 18% WPI; apportioned 15% psychiatric disability to non-industrial factors; found psychiatric injury predominantly caused by industrial injury; opined occupational feasibility.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Gilberg's psychiatric evaluation and apportionment in assessing permanent disability and vocational feasibility.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Gilberg, the AME in psychiatry, re-evaluated applicant on October 13, 2015, after he
reviewed the reports of the IVE and Dr. Levine and Dr. Feiwell. He diagnosed applicant as
suffering from a Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Somatic Symptom Disorder
Predominantly with Pain, which is persistent, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition,
a Sleep Disorder and Sexual Dysfunction Not Otherwise Specified. He assessed applicant with a
GAF score of 58, equaling a WPI of 18%. He had previously given her a GAF score of 60. He
found her psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by her industrial injury. (Ex. FF, 10/13/15
Dr. Gilberg Report, p. 15.) He apportioned 15% of applicant's psychiatric disability to "non-
industrial/pre-existing personal stressors, including her essentially being left by her mother and
raised by her grandparents, the loss of an infant, and the issue of her divorce. Furthermore she has
a somatoform disorder which has non industrial components. There is an over reaction to physical
problems conditioned by her psychological state. I have not made a Axis II diagnosis but one might
consider the somatoform disorder to be a reflection of her personality make-up." (Ex. FF, p. 17-
18.)
AMERelied upon · orthopedics
Rated 8% WPI for low back; no other ratable impairment; found no impairment in neck and upper extremities; deferred fibromyalgia opinion to Dr. Levine; provided work preclusion of no very heavy work.
The WCJ credited Dr. Feiwell's orthopedic evaluation and rating in determining permanent disability and work restrictions.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Feiwell, the orthopedic AME, issued a July 21, 2015 supplemental report in which he
reviewed his, and the other AMEs, prior and current reporting. He restated his rating of 8% WPI
for applicant's low back findings, and noted that he found no other ratable impairment. He stated
that from an orthopedic standpoint, applicant's "neck and upper extremity examination was normal
and had no impairment rating and I would not apply Almaraz-Guzman based upon her emotional
overlay. Dr. Levine was asked about medical conditions that were worsened by her injury of 2004
and I will defer to his opinion regarding her fibromyalgia, but on an orthopedic basis she has no
evidence whatsoever of an impairment rating with full range of motion." (Ex. CC, 7/21/15 Dr.
Feiwell Supplemental Report, p. 5.) He provided a work preclusion of no very heavy work.
AMERelied upon · orthopedics
Supplemental report restating 8% WPI for low back and no other impairment; no application of Almaraz-Guzman based on emotional overlay.
Supplemental report reaffirmed prior orthopedic findings and ratings.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Feiwell, the orthopedic AME, issued a July 21, 2015 supplemental report in which he
reviewed his, and the other AMEs, prior and current reporting. He restated his rating of 8% WPI
for applicant's low back findings, and noted that he found no other ratable impairment. He stated
that from an orthopedic standpoint, applicant's "neck and upper extremity examination was normal
and had no impairment rating and I would not apply Almaraz-Guzman based upon her emotional
overlay. Dr. Levine was asked about medical conditions that were worsened by her injury of 2004
and I will defer to his opinion regarding her fibromyalgia, but on an orthopedic basis she has no
evidence whatsoever of an impairment rating with full range of motion." (Ex. CC, 7/21/15 Dr.
Feiwell Supplemental Report, p. 5.) He provided a work preclusion of no very heavy work.
AMERelied upon · psychiatry
Re-evaluation confirming psychiatric injury and occupational feasibility, agreeing with other AMEs' findings.
The WCJ relied on the supplemental psychiatric evaluation in affirming vocational feasibility.
From the decision · page 5He changed his opinion regarding applicant's ability to return to the workforce, and agreed
with the findings of the other AMEs, stating: "I do believe based on the AME reports in
Orthopedics and Internal Medicine that the consultee is occupationally feasible." (Ex. FF, p. 15.)
AMEGiven great weight · orthopedics
Reviewed prior and current reports, restated 8% WPI for low back, no other impairment, no Almaraz-Guzman application due to emotional overlay, deferred fibromyalgia opinion to Dr. Levine, work preclusion of no very heavy work.
The WCJ gave great weight to this supplemental orthopedic report.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Feiwell, the orthopedic AME, issued a July 21, 2015 supplemental report in which he
reviewed his, and the other AMEs, prior and current reporting. He restated his rating of 8% WPI
for applicant's low back findings, and noted that he found no other ratable impairment. He stated
that from an orthopedic standpoint, applicant's "neck and upper extremity examination was normal
and had no impairment rating and I would not apply Almaraz-Guzman based upon her emotional
overlay. Dr. Levine was asked about medical conditions that were worsened by her injury of 2004
and I will defer to his opinion regarding her fibromyalgia, but on an orthopedic basis she has no
evidence whatsoever of an impairment rating with full range of motion." (Ex. CC, 7/21/15 Dr.
Feiwell Supplemental Report, p. 5.) He provided a work preclusion of no very heavy work.
AMEGiven great weight · psychiatry
Diagnosed depressive disorder, somatic symptom disorder with pain, sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction; assessed 18% WPI; apportioned 15% psychiatric disability to non-industrial factors; found psychiatric injury predominantly caused by industrial injury; opined occupational feasibility.
The WCJ gave great weight to this psychiatric evaluation and apportionment.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Gilberg, the AME in psychiatry, re-evaluated applicant on October 13, 2015, after he
reviewed the reports of the IVE and Dr. Levine and Dr. Feiwell. He diagnosed applicant as
suffering from a Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Somatic Symptom Disorder
Predominantly with Pain, which is persistent, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition,
a Sleep Disorder and Sexual Dysfunction Not Otherwise Specified. He assessed applicant with a
GAF score of 58, equaling a WPI of 18%. He had previously given her a GAF score of 60. He
found her psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by her industrial injury. (Ex. FF, 10/13/15
Dr. Gilberg Report, p. 15.) He apportioned 15% of applicant's psychiatric disability to "non-
industrial/pre-existing personal stressors, including her essentially being left by her mother and
raised by her grandparents, the loss of an infant, and the issue of her divorce. Furthermore she has
a somatoform disorder which has non industrial components. There is an over reaction to physical
problems conditioned by her psychological state. I have not made a Axis II diagnosis but one might
consider the somatoform disorder to be a reflection of her personality make-up." (Ex. FF, p. 17-
18.)
AMEGiven great weight · orthopedics
Rated 8% WPI for low back; no other ratable impairment; found no impairment in neck and upper extremities; deferred fibromyalgia opinion to Dr. Levine; provided work preclusion of no very heavy work.
The WCJ gave great weight to this orthopedic evaluation and rating.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Feiwell, the orthopedic AME, issued a July 21, 2015 supplemental report in which he
reviewed his, and the other AMEs, prior and current reporting. He restated his rating of 8% WPI
for applicant's low back findings, and noted that he found no other ratable impairment. He stated
that from an orthopedic standpoint, applicant's "neck and upper extremity examination was normal
and had no impairment rating and I would not apply Almaraz-Guzman based upon her emotional
overlay. Dr. Levine was asked about medical conditions that were worsened by her injury of 2004
and I will defer to his opinion regarding her fibromyalgia, but on an orthopedic basis she has no
evidence whatsoever of an impairment rating with full range of motion." (Ex. CC, 7/21/15 Dr.
Feiwell Supplemental Report, p. 5.) He provided a work preclusion of no very heavy work.
AMERelied upon · orthopedics
Reviewed prior and current reports, restated 8% WPI for low back, no other impairment, no Almaraz-Guzman application due to emotional overlay, deferred fibromyalgia opinion to Dr. Levine, work preclusion of no very heavy work.
The WCJ relied on this supplemental orthopedic report in affirming disability rating.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Feiwell, the orthopedic AME, issued a July 21, 2015 supplemental report in which he
reviewed his, and the other AMEs, prior and current reporting. He restated his rating of 8% WPI
for applicant's low back findings, and noted that he found no other ratable impairment. He stated
that from an orthopedic standpoint, applicant's "neck and upper extremity examination was normal
and had no impairment rating and I would not apply Almaraz-Guzman based upon her emotional
overlay. Dr. Levine was asked about medical conditions that were worsened by her injury of 2004
and I will defer to his opinion regarding her fibromyalgia, but on an orthopedic basis she has no
evidence whatsoever of an impairment rating with full range of motion." (Ex. CC, 7/21/15 Dr.
Feiwell Supplemental Report, p. 5.) He provided a work preclusion of no very heavy work.
AMERelied upon · psychiatry
Diagnosed depressive disorder, somatic symptom disorder with pain, sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction; assessed 18% WPI; apportioned 15% psychiatric disability to non-industrial factors; found psychiatric injury predominantly caused by industrial injury; opined occupational feasibility.
The WCJ relied on this psychiatric evaluation and apportionment in affirming disability rating.
From the decision · page 4Dr. Gilberg, the AME in psychiatry, re-evaluated applicant on October 13, 2015, after he
reviewed the reports of the IVE and Dr. Levine and Dr. Feiwell. He diagnosed applicant as
suffering from a Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Somatic Symptom Disorder
Predominantly with Pain, which is persistent, Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Condition,
a Sleep Disorder and Sexual Dysfunction Not Otherwise Specified. He assessed applicant with a
GAF score of 58, equaling a WPI of 18%. He had previously given her a GAF score of 60. He
found her psychiatric injury was predominantly caused by her industrial injury. (Ex. FF, 10/13/15
Dr. Gilberg Report, p. 15.) He apportioned 15% of applicant's psychiatric disability to "non-
industrial/pre-existing personal stressors, including her essentially being left by her mother and
raised by her grandparents, the loss of an infant, and the issue of her divorce. Furthermore she has
a somatoform disorder which has non industrial components. There is an over reaction to physical
problems conditioned by her psychological state. I have not made a Axis II diagnosis but one might
consider the somatoform disorder to be a reflection of her personality make-up." (Ex. FF, p. 17-
18.)