QMERelied upon · orthopedics
Diagnosed chronic lumbosacral sprain and strain with intermittent radiculopathy, chronic cervical sprain and strain with intermittent radiculopathy, bilateral shoulder strain, and bilateral negative ulnar variance of the wrist with possible wrist tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome; opined symptoms resulted from continuous microtrauma due to work from 1986 to 2019; recommended aggressive orthopedic care and further specialist consultations.
Dr. Sharma's reports provide substantial evidence describing job duties, injury history, diagnoses confirmed by MRI, and unrebutted industrial causation opinion, supporting industrial injury findings.
From the decision · page 6applicant's burden of proof that he sustained orthopedic industrial injury by way of cumulative
trauma. Dr. Sharma's reporting is substantial evidence because it describes applicant's job duties
and history of injury, it includes a comprehensive review of Dr. Torres's early treatment reports,
it provides a diagnosis confirmed by Dr. Sharma's review of MRI studies, and it includes an
unrebutted discussion of industrial causation.
PTPGiven great weight · chiropractor
Provided early treatment reports supporting industrial injury; reports challenged by defendant but found credible in context of Dr. Sharma's substantial evidence.
Dr. Torres's reports were considered credible and persuasive as supported by Dr. Sharma's substantial medical evidence.
From the decision · page 7Having disposed of the issue of industrial injury, we close by addressing defendant's sole
contention; defendant objects to the reporting of Dr. Torres as it relates to temporary disability.
Defendant alleges that the reports of Dr. Torres dated August 13, 2019, January 21, 2021, March
30, 2021, and June 9, 2021 are not substantial evidence because they fail to include a medical
record review, job analysis, and job description. First, we note that of those reports, the only one
in evidence is the report dated June 9, 2021 and as such it is the only one that requires a response
to defendant. (Joint Exhibit DD.) Although defendant complains that the report lacks the content
mentioned above, it makes no difference because Dr. Sharma's reporting does have the necessary
content to support our conclusion that applicant sustained orthopedic injury by way of cumulative
trauma. We further note that defendant's petition is limited to the allegation that Dr.