What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Primary Treating Physician Dr. Sam Tabibian treated and monitored the applicant and performed a final physical exam on June 4, 2020 finding the applicant at MMI.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This was the basis for relying on Dr. Tabibian's report as substantial medical evidence despite alleged errors.
From the decision · page 4The PTP Dr. Tabibian had treated the Applicant since February 11, 2019 and provided
multiple reports discussing the Applicant's treatment progress and disability status (Exhibits 18,
19, 20, 21, & 22). As the doctor who provided treatment and monitored the Applicant's medical
progress, Dr. Tabibian was in the position to determine if the Applicant had reached MMI.
Dr. Tabibian performed a final physical exam of Applicant on June 4, 2020 and found that the
Applicant had reached MMI and could be discharged from care. Nothing in Dr. Tabibian's
June 4, 2020 final report shows any connection or influence between the applicant's work status
and his MMI status. Petitioner offers only speculation and conjecture that Dr. Tabibian's opinion
was based upon or influenced by whether or not the Applicant had returned to work. Petitioner
"supposes" that the error is relevant rather than providing any cogent argument or actual evidence
of relevancy.
Petitioner failed to timely pursue discovery and did not object to the declaration of readiness or appeal the trial setting, resulting in no denial of due process.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified the closure of discovery and setting the matter for trial without reopening discovery.
From the decision · page 8It is clear that Petitioner had multiple opportunities to complete their discovery and were
even reminded to do so by their opponent. Their delay in discovery efforts resulted in the inability
to complete discovery. Had they acted in a timely manner they would have either completed
discovery or would have had a basis to request additional time. In addition, Petitioner did not avail
themselves of the right to lodge an objection to the Declaration of Readiness or appeal the
March 18, 2021 ruling. Petitioner most certainly has due process rights, they failed to exercise
those rights. Therefore there was no denial of due process.
Unrebutted medical opinions from Dr. Tabibian and Dr. Brown supported an 80% permanent disability rating with 20% apportionment to non-industrial factors.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the award of permanent disability benefits and life pension to the applicant.
From the decision · page 11The apportionment provided by Dr. Tabibian is both legal and logical and therefore it is found that
20% of Applicant's orthopedic permanent disability for the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left hip,
and right knee is apportioned to non-industrial factors.