What the panel ordered
Reconsideration granted; WCJ's F&O rescinded; new Findings and Award issued finding industrial injury, awarding medical-legal expenses, deferring medical treatment liens, and returning matter to trial level.
Lien claimant Medland Medical petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's September 27, 2024 Findings and Orders denying its lien for failure to prove injury AOE/COE and reasonableness of charges. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&O, found industrial injury, awarded medical-legal expenses, deferred medical treatment liens, and returned the matter for further proceedings.
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.
Dr. Haghighinia's reporting constituted substantial medical evidence, taking an accurate and adequate history and explaining how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. Minor report errors did not warrant rejection.
From the decision · page 7Here, lien claimant clearly met the burden of proving applicant's injury was industrial. Dr. Haghighinia's reporting constitutes substantial medical evidence by taking an accurate and adequate history of injury and explaining how and why the industrial work exposure caused applicant's complaints. The WCJ faulted the doctor for using an incorrect pronoun in one portion of the report, however this is a common error seen across many medical reports and does not, by itself, warrant rejecting the entirety of the report. The WCJ further noted that the doctor found that applicant had no flexion or extension range of motion measurements of the lumbar spine. This appears to be a misreading as the doctor placed an asterisk in these sections and noted that applicant was having pain in these areas. Again, this is a relatively minor issue that does not warrant rejecting the doctor's finding of industrial injury. Finally, the WCJ noted that the primary treater did not review applicant's prior medical records; however, there is no allegation that any such records exist, or were otherwise obtained and not reviewed.