What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award, and Order affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award, and Order issued August 4, 2022, which found injury AOE/COE; WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; WCAB panel denied reconsideration on October 28, 2022.
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.
AOE/COEApplicant prevailedbrain · nervous system · vascular system
The WCJ and WCAB found Dr. Shorr's medical opinions substantial and persuasive that applicant's stroke and carotid dissection were industrially caused by work activities, rejecting Dr. Solomon's biomechanical opinions as non-medical and legally insufficient.
From the decision · page 5The Panel QME in the case spent face-to-face time with Applicant, took a detailed history, physically examined, and evaluated him and performed necessary and relevant testing. Dr. Shorr also reviewed medical records and gave well-reasoned, cogent opinions and conclusions. It was undersigned's conclusion that Dr. Shorr's reports, and deposition are substantial evidence... (Report, p. 6, italics and underlining in original.) Based on our review of the trial record, we agree with the WCJ that Dr. Shorr's reports, and deposition testimony are substantial evidence that applicant sustained injury AOE/COE, in the form of a stroke and the resulting conditions. Also, as the WCJ noted, there is no medical evidence in the record controverting or otherwise inconsistent with Dr. Shorr's opinions. Defendant argues that the reports from biomechanics expert Kenneth A.