The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
otherRelied upon
Diagnosed malingering, undifferentiated somatization disorder, possible depressive disorder, and status post minor industrial injuries; concluded complaints were due to psychiatric problems rather than the cause.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Sigal's opinion to assess the credibility and causation of applicant's complaints.
From the decision · page 28, lines 1-8.) Finally, applicant alleged injury on
September 19, 2014, to the bilateral upper extremities, bilateral lower extremities, and psych. (Id.
at p. 8, line 22 through p. 9, line 4.)
The sole issues for trial were industrial injury and body parts injured. (Ibid.) Applicant
argued that the matter should be taken off calendar for further discovery.
In the WCJ’s Opinion on Decision, the WCJ thoroughly details applicant’s medical records
and testimony at trial. As relevant herein, she stated,
Dr. Sigal provided a detailed review of over 1,500 pages of records spanning the
period from 2004 to 2016, the vast majority of which were not offered into
evidence.
AMEGiven great weight · orthopedic
Rated 80% whole person impairment due to severe psychological reaction to injury of November 15, 2013; deferred hemorrhoid issues to general surgeon.
The AME's report was considered but deferred some issues; the Appeals Board noted the AME's neutrality and expertise.
From the decision · page 2(Defendants’ Exhibit C, supra, at 11-50.) Dr. Sigal discussed treatment
reports immediately following the January 27, 2013 injury, as well as extensive
reports documenting treatment received by applicant in the years that followed. (Id.
at 12-40.) Additionally, Dr. Sigal reviewed an orthopedic QME report by Dr. John
Lavorgna (July 16, 2015). (Id. at 29-30.)...
It was Dr. Sigal’s opinion that much of the medical reporting in applicant’s case
was based on inadequate or flatly erroneous history......
Dr. Sigal diagnosed applicant with malingering, undifferentiated somatization
disorder, possible depressive disorder, and status post minor industrial injuries. (Id.
at 51-52.) He concluded that applicant’s complaints are the result of her psychiatric
problems, rather than the cause of them. (Defendants’ Exhibit C, supra, at 56.)...
On November 9, 2018, orthopedic AME Dr. Mandell saw applicant a second time.
(Defendants’ Exhibit E, report of Dr. Mandell dated November 9, 2018.)... Dr.
Mandell concluded that applicant sustained a major psychological event which
caused a near catatonic state in which she remained. (Defendants’ Exhibit E, supra,
at 4.) Because applicant was wheelchair bound, he rated her at 80% whole person
secondary_treaterPartially credited · neurology
Noted applicant's anxiety, depression, and frustration; recommended neuropsychological evaluation, psychiatric care, and brain MRI; opined medication contributed to complaints.
The report was reviewed and considered in the record for the applicant's psychiatric and neurological condition.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Jonathan Rutchik issued a neurology supplemental treatment report in
September 2021, indicating that he last saw the applicant in October 2015.
(Applicant’s Exhibit 8, report of Dr. Rutchik dated September 17, 2021, p. 2.) He
noted that at the time of her previous visit, applicant was taking Norco “many times
per day” and requested more, and that he refused to endorse the requested treatment
and applicant was directed to seek another doctor. (Id. at 2-3.) Dr. Rutchik wrote,
“I think the issue is anxiety, depression and frustration that she cannot work.” (Id.
at 3.)