What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No legal basis for commutation of medical award other than by Compromise and Release.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This legal standard directly supports denial of applicant's request to commute medical award.
From the decision · page 6Labor Code sections 5000 through 5106 address compromise and releases
as well as lump sum payments. Labor Code section 5101 instructs how to
determine lump sum payments for temporary, permanent disability and death
benefits. The undersigned is unaware of any Labor Code section, regulation or
case that would allow commutation of a medical award other than by a
Compromise and Release.
Additional temporary disability period from July 1, 2017 through September 20, 2017 supported by Dr. Sizer's work status report and consistent with Dr. the applicant's opinions.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports the finding of temporary disability period and denial of applicant's challenge.
From the decision · page 6The undersigned found the additional period of temporary disability from
July 1, 2017 through September 20, 2017 based on the work status report of Dr.
Sizer (Applicant Exhibit 8). In light of the evidentiary record, this period of
temporary disability was consistent with Dr. the applicant's opinions as expressed above.
Permanent and stationary date of August 9, 2019 based on Dr. the applicant's opinion.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports the finding of permanent and stationary date and denial of applicant's challenge.
From the decision · page 7With regard to Finding of Fact 3, applicant does not provide any argument
or reasoning as to why she disagrees with the permanent and stationary date of
August 9, 2019. This date was based upon the opinion of Dr. the applicant (Joint Exhibit
CC, at pages 65 and 77).
Dr. the applicant's apportionment opinion supported by detailed history, medical records, and observations; apportionment to non-industrial factors justified.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supports the finding of 14% permanent disability after apportionment and denial of applicant's challenge.
From the decision · page 7With regard to Finding of Fact 4, applicant argues that Dr. the applicant's
apportionment opinion is not substantial medical evidence. Dr. the applicant took a
detailed history from applicant, reviewed pertinent medical records and
concluded that there was apportionment to factors other than the industrial injury
(Joint Exhibit CC, at page 68-71).