What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's unapportioned award affirmedp. 5
Defendant petition for reconsideration of WCJ Findings and Award finding unapportioned permanent disability
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.
ApportionmentApplicant prevailedright shoulder
QME apportionment opinion not substantial medical evidence; defendant failed burden of proof
From the decision · page 4The evaluator must detail the specific facts of the case that support why the principles apply to the case at hand. The QME did not do this. Thus, the QME’s apportionment opinion is not substantial medical evidence and defendant did not meet its burden of proof on apportionment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME apportionment opinion rests on presumption that applicant's loss of mobility increased by 25% and not on specific facts of this case