ADJ4467694 · January 21, 2022

The applicant was found to have a compensable consequence dermatological injury requiring additional treatment, but no additional permanent impairment.

From the decision · page 5The parties stipulated that the applicant had sustained dermatological injury, which was listed in the findings of the decision served on October 26, 2021. The contact dermatitis was found to be a compensable consequence injury and the Applicant was found to be entitled to treatment for this injury.

The medical evidence, including agreed medical evaluators' reports, supported that the applicant did not sustain new and further permanent disability beyond the stipulated 70% impairment.

From the decision · page 3applicant, through his attorney of record, Law Offices of Moore and Associates, has filed a verified, timely Petition for Reconsideration contending that the evidence does not justify the Findings of Fact and that the Findings of Fact do not support the decision, in the Findings and Order served on October 26, 2021, in which it was determined that the Applicant had not sustained new and further permanent disability as a result of his work related injuries on May 15, 2003, ADJ3736071, and during the period from May 15, 2002 to May 15, 2003, ADJ4467694. Although it was found that the applicant sustained a compensable consequence dermatological injury subsequent to surgery which did necessitate new and further treatment, the industrially related dermatological injury was found to have resolved without additional permanent impairment.

The agreed medical evaluators' reports, including Dr. Raskin and Dr. Danzig, were found to be substantial and persuasive medical evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

These reports supported the denial of new and further permanent disability and confirmed the need for treatment of dermatological injury without additional impairment.

From the decision · page 5The report was reviewed and appeared to comply with Labor Code § 4628, including a complete history, reviewing and summarizing medical records and composing and drafting the conclusions of the report. Dr. Raskin notes his compliance with § 139.2U) and 5307.6. Dr. Raskin appeared to have spent time interacting with the Applicant in person, to obtain photographs of his skin condition and, based on the Applicant's testimony and the information in the report, Dr. Raskin did ask the applicant questions and obtain responses. The need for an AME in dermatology was necessary specifically because the determinations of Dr. Alaiti and Dr. Aurora differed as to the type of condition, and as to causation. Most significantly, they seemed to be describing several separate conditions, a sensitivity condition which the Applicant appears to have had since the 1990's, the contact dermatitis, which developed after surgery in 2010, and which resolved, followed by the folliculitis, which is recurrent. This was confirmed with a detailed explanation by Dr.

Applicant's stipulated permanent impairment rating of 70% from 2007 remained accurate with no increase found.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the denial of increased permanent disability.

From the decision · page 6Dr. Stanley Majcher, determined that the Applicant has not sustained an industrially related internal injury in his report of October 19, 2016, and Dr. Bernard Raskin did not find the Applicant to have sustained permanent impairment from the contact dermatitis, determined to be industrially related. Although Applicant submitted a vocational report, it was cursory. It did not include review of most of the medical reports, or include a labor market survey, or fully address the applicant's full range of skills, to determine if there were suitable alternatives for potential employment. Based on the lack of detail, it was found not to be substantial evidence. The medical evidence reviewed, indicated that the Applicant's impairment, assessed in conjunction with the Stipulation With Request For Award in 2007, stipulated to 70% permanent impairment remained accurate, therefore no increase in the level of permanent impairment was found. A need for additional medical treatment, to treat the contact dermatitis was found.

Confirmed compensable consequence contact dermatitis post-surgery requiring treatment but no permanent impairment; folliculitis found non-industrial.

Dr. Raskin's report was found to be substantial medical evidence and was relied upon to determine compensability and treatment needs for dermatological injury.

From the decision · page 5The report was reviewed and appeared to comply with Labor Code § 4628, including a complete history, reviewing and summarizing medical records and composing and drafting the conclusions of the report. Dr. Raskin notes his compliance with § 139.2U) and 5307.6. Dr. Raskin appeared to have spent time interacting with the Applicant in person, to obtain photographs of his skin condition and, based on the Applicant's testimony and the information in the report, Dr. Raskin did ask the applicant questions and obtain responses. The need for an AME in dermatology was necessary specifically because the determinations of Dr. Alaiti and Dr. Aurora differed as to the type of condition, and as to causation. Most significantly, they seemed to be describing several separate conditions, a sensitivity condition which the Applicant appears to have had since the 1990's, the contact dermatitis, which developed after surgery in 2010, and which resolved, followed by the folliculitis, which is recurrent. This was confirmed with a detailed explanation by Dr.

Found no new and further permanent impairment beyond 2007 stipulated 70% permanent disability; restrictions remain unchanged.

Dr. Danzig's report was dispositive in finding no increase in permanent impairment since the 2007 stipulation.

From the decision · page 6In evaluating whether the Applicant has sustained additional permanent impairment due to his industrial injuries the report of Dr. Larry Danzig, dated May 22, 2012, was found to be dispositive. It notes the restrictions from 2007 of "No repetitive heavy lifting activities, repetitive bending or stooping, prolonged standing, or prolonged walking, and repetitive power gripping or grasping with the hands. No forceful activities or use of vibrating or pounding tools, and no repetitive manipulative activities. Limitation to semi-sedentary work for the lumbar spine. Allowance for an AFO brace. No use of arms at shoulder level or above and no repetitive pushing or pulling activities." Dr. Danzig indicated that it was medically probable that the Applicant's restrictions, which are the basis for impairment, remain unchanged since the Stipulation With Request For Award in 2007. The indicated future medical remains consistent. Although Applicant argues that Dr. Danzig mentions he did not receive a comprehensive evaluation for the Applicant for around the time of the Award, Dr. Danzig appears to have been provided with the medical reports from the time period, numerous reports from various doctors who saw the Applicant in 2006 and 2007, as noted in Dr. Danzig's report of April 26, 2010.

Determined no industrially related internal injury; supported no new permanent impairment.

Dr. Majcher's report supported the finding of no new permanent impairment.

From the decision · page 6Dr. Stanley Majcher, determined that the Applicant has not sustained an industrially related internal injury in his report of October 19, 2016, and Dr. Bernard Raskin did not find the Applicant to have sustained permanent impairment from the contact dermatitis, determined to be industrially related. Although Applicant submitted a vocational report, it was cursory. It did not include review of most of the medical reports, or include a labor market survey, or fully address the applicant's full range of skills, to determine if there were suitable alternatives for potential employment. Based on the lack of detail, it was found not to be substantial evidence. The medical evidence reviewed, indicated that the Applicant's impairment, assessed in conjunction with the Stipulation With Request For Award in 2007, stipulated to 70% permanent impairment remained accurate, therefore no increase in the level of permanent impairment was found. A need for additional medical treatment, to treat the contact dermatitis was found.

California Labor Code

Labor Code Section 4663 and 4664 regarding permanent disability rating and apportionment

Applied to determine no new and further permanent disability beyond stipulated impairment.

From the decision · page 3applicant, through his attorney of record, Law Offices of Moore and Associates, has filed a verified, timely Petition for Reconsideration contending that the evidence does not justify the Findings of Fact and that the Findings of Fact do not support the decision, in the Findings and Order served on October 26, 2021, in which it was determined that the Applicant had not sustained new and further permanent disability as a result of his work related injuries on May 15, 2003, ADJ3736071, and during the period from May 15, 2002 to May 15, 2003, ADJ4467694. Although it was found that the applicant sustained a compensable consequence dermatological injury subsequent to surgery which did necessitate new and further treatment, the industrially related dermatological injury was found to have resolved without additional permanent impairment.

California Labor Code

Labor Code Section 4600 regarding medical treatment for industrial injuries

Applied to find compensable consequence dermatological injury requiring treatment.

From the decision · page 5The parties stipulated that the applicant had sustained dermatological injury, which was listed in the findings of the decision served on October 26, 2021. The contact dermatitis was found to be a compensable consequence injury and the Applicant was found to be entitled to treatment for this injury.

Applicant's testimony about Dr. Raskin's evaluation time and photographic documentation of skin condition

From the decision · page 5Applicant argued at trial that the report of Dr. Raskin should not be considered substantial medical evidence, because Dr. Raskin did not spend sufficient time with the Applicant during the evaluation. The Applicant testified that Dr. Raskin spent about 10 minutes directly with the Applicant and during that time the doctor had him undress and took photographs of the Applicant's skin. He testified that Dr. Raskin took the pictures himself, and took pictures of the front and back of his body and his bottom area because he was still having problems there. He testified that he believes the doctor miscounted in the counting of the number of pimples on his chest, because although the number was low at the time that he was seen, he believes there were more than two pimples on his chest at the time he was seen, which was the number stated by the doctor.