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.
ApportionmentApplicant prevailedcervical spine · lumbar spine
Dr. Brourman's apportionment opinion was an educated guess without substantial evidence, so apportionment was not found.
From the decision · page 3As noted above, in his first report Dr. Brourman stated that it was "impossible to distinguish between the two injuries" as to their "contribution of disability." He then stated that regarding applicant's neck and back disability, the "injuries are inextricably intertwined involving the patient's disability to the neck and back" and that he would apportion applicant's disability "equally" between the two injuries. (Def. Exh, A, p. 26.) In his subsequent report, Dr. Brourman stated, "I can simply state that 50/50 apportionment is my best estimate, but it is certainly no more than an educated guess." (Def. Exh. B, p. 2.) The doctor did not explain how and why applicant's injury caused by the September 7, 2018 motor vehicle accident was causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, nor did he explain how and why those factors are responsible for 50% of applicant's disability. Dr. Brourman's conclusions regarding apportionment, do not comply with the requirements stated by the Appeals Board in Escobedo, supra. Further, he specifically
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Brourman stated it was impossible to distinguish between the two injuries' contribution to disability and that his 50/50 apportionment was an educated guess