What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ Findings and Orders affirmed
Petition for Reconsideration of WCJ Findings and Orders of January 14, 2022
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.
AOE/COEDefendant prevailedhypertension · psyche
The WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to prove industrial injury in hypertension or stroke is supported by the persuasive opinion of Dr. Lineback, who found the hypertension and stroke nonindustrial, outweighing Dr. Lipper's contrary opinion.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Orders of January 14, 2022 wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain industrial injury while employed as a clinical laboratory scientist during a cumulative period ending on March 15, 2011. The WCJ thus ordered that applicant take nothing by way of his workers' compensation claim. As relevant to the instant Petition for Reconsideration, in this matter, applicant claimed that he sustained a cumulative injury in the form of hypertension and to the psyche. Applicant argued that an industrial hypertension injury contributed to a subsequent stroke.