Dr. Martinovsky personally reviewed the MRI films and was more familiar with the applicant's condition as her treating physician.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the WCJ's finding that Dr. Martinovsky's opinion was substantial evidence and more persuasive than the QME's.
From the decision · page 4The parties stipulated to the permanent disability ratings of Drs.
Martinovsky (32%) and Dr. Jennings (8%). Dr. Martinovsky's reports
constituted substantial evidence. He took an accurate history, performed a
physical examination and reviewed all the medical records. As Candace
the applicant's treating physician, he was more familiar with her condition. He
personally reviewed the MRI films, which he is qualified to do as a
physician. Dr. Jennings was unable to review the films and simply relied
on the radiologist report. Applicant's condition appears to have worsened
since the Dr. Jennings evaluation. It does not appear that Dr. Jennings
reviewed all the medical records. Dr. Jenning's report curiously describes
impairment to the LEFT Thoracic spine and separately to the RIGHT
Thoracic spine. For these reasons, Dr. Jennings opinions regarding
permanent disability are not persuasive.
Applicant's credible testimony about worsening symptoms and impact on daily activities.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the award of 32% permanent partial disability based on the treating physician's rating.
From the decision · page 4Applicant was the only witness. Her testimony is summarized at pages 3-
5 of the Opinion. She testified credibly about her injury and disability. She stated
that her condition worsened between the time Dr. Jennings evaluated her on July
8, 2022 and Dr. Martinovsky's evaluation on January 5, 2023.
Dr. Jennings did not review all medical records and could not review MRI films personally, making his opinion less persuasive.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This undermined the defense's challenge to the disability rating and supported the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Martinovsky's opinion.
From the decision · page 4The parties stipulated to the permanent disability ratings of Drs.
Martinovsky (32%) and Dr. Jennings (8%). Dr. Martinovsky's reports
constituted substantial evidence. He took an accurate history, performed a
physical examination and reviewed all the medical records. As Candace
the applicant's treating physician, he was more familiar with her condition. He
personally reviewed the MRI films, which he is qualified to do as a
physician. Dr. Jennings was unable to review the films and simply relied
on the radiologist report. Applicant's condition appears to have worsened
since the Dr. Jennings evaluation. It does not appear that Dr. Jennings
reviewed all the medical records. Dr. Jenning's report curiously describes
impairment to the LEFT Thoracic spine and separately to the RIGHT
Thoracic spine. For these reasons, Dr. Jennings opinions regarding
permanent disability are not persuasive.