What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied
Petition for Reconsideration filed August 9, 2023, challenging July 21, 2023 Findings of Fact and Award
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.
Medical treatment / UR / IMRDefendant prevailedright foot · bilateral knees · lumbar spine
The WCJ found the applicant's testimony not credible and found the QME report by Dr. Chitnis to be substantial medical evidence despite interpreting issues and alleged failure to review records.
From the decision · page 4There were QME's in four specialties in this matter, but the Petition for Reconsideration discusses only Dr. Chitnis, who served as QME in physical medicine and rehabilitation. (8/23/2023 MOH, p. 4, lines 46-47.) An issue for trial was "Whether the December 1, 2020 report of QME Nicole Chitnis, M.D., is rendered not substantial medical evidence due to applicant's allegation of inaccurate interpreting and use of multiple interpreters." (8/23/2023 MOH, p. 3, lines 18-21.) An additional issue involved whether a replacement internal QME panel was required. (8/23/2023 MOH, p. 3, lines 23-29.)