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.
QMERelied upon · heart
Provided substantial medical evidence supporting 78% permanent disability for the specific injury and 26% for the cumulative trauma injury, including apportionment of 60% to nonindustrial factors for hypertension.
The WCJ relied on Dr. O'Neill's detailed and well-reasoned medical reports and deposition testimony as substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 1Next, we note that these claims were consolidated on April 10, 2018. (Minutes of Hearing
and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 4/10/18, at p. 2:3-6.) Therefore, documentary evidence
received in one case is part of the record in both cases. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396(e).)
Moreover, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME)
Edward O'Neill, M.D., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied
regarding the specific injury in Case No. ADJ10320494. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must be framed in terms
of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts
and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its
QMERelied upon · orthopedics
Provided expert opinions supporting compensable left shoulder injury and justification for rating grip loss impairment.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Schengel's expert opinions for findings on left shoulder injury and grip loss impairment.
From the decision · page 5The parties obtained two QME's for the heart, one for each injury. One was Dr. Edward
O'Neill and the other Dr. Mark Lensky. applicant was also evaluated by an orthopedic
QME, Dr. Donald Schengel.
QMERejected · heart
Not relied upon by the WCJ; defendant did not challenge Dr. O'Neill's opinion with specific references to Dr. Lensky's opinion.
The WCJ found Dr. O'Neill's opinion substantial and did not rely on Dr. Lensky's opinion; defendant did not meet burden to show Dr. Lensky's opinion was more substantial.
From the decision · page 1Next, we note that these claims were consolidated on April 10, 2018. (Minutes of Hearing
and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 4/10/18, at p. 2:3-6.) Therefore, documentary evidence
received in one case is part of the record in both cases. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10396(e).)
Moreover, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of panel qualified medical examiner (PQME)
Edward O'Neill, M.D., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ properly relied
regarding the specific injury in Case No. ADJ10320494. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc) [a medical opinion must be framed in terms
of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts
and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its