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.
PTPRejected
Did not provide clear and substantial evidence that the current total disability is due solely to the industrial injury of July 8, 2013.
The WCJ found the medical reporting of Dr. Wieseltier insufficient to establish causation of the current total disability by the industrial injury.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ emphasizes at the outset that there is little doubt that applicant is
permanently and totally disabled. However, it is applicant's burden to
demonstrate, through substantial medical evidence, that the industrial injury of
July 8, 2013, is the cause of applicant's alleged new and further disability.
After a thorough review of the medical reporting of Dr. Wieseltier, Dr.
McSweeney, and Dr. Ziegler, as well as the independent medical evaluation of
Dr. John Lane, the WCJ finds that none of these physicians have provided clear
and substantial evidence regarding how, why, and to what extent applicants'
current total disability is due to the injury of July 8, 2013. This case has been
on this WCJ's trial calendar on eight separate occasions. Therefore, applicant
has had more than adequate opportunity to develop the record and provide the
court with substantial evidence. The WCJ has repeatedly reviewed applicant's
evidence and determined that none of the medical reporting was substantial
evidence on the issues presented, and further discovery was necessary.
Therefore, after receiving no additional medical reporting that addresses the
industrial causation issue, the WCJ eventually found it necessary to order an
PTPRejected
Did not provide clear and substantial evidence that the current total disability is due solely to the industrial injury of July 8, 2013.
The WCJ found the medical reporting of Dr. McSweeney insufficient to establish causation of the current total disability by the industrial injury.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ emphasizes at the outset that there is little doubt that applicant is
permanently and totally disabled. However, it is applicant's burden to
demonstrate, through substantial medical evidence, that the industrial injury of
July 8, 2013, is the cause of applicant's alleged new and further disability.
After a thorough review of the medical reporting of Dr. Wieseltier, Dr.
McSweeney, and Dr. Ziegler, as well as the independent medical evaluation of
Dr. John Lane, the WCJ finds that none of these physicians have provided clear
and substantial evidence regarding how, why, and to what extent applicants'
current total disability is due to the injury of July 8, 2013. This case has been
on this WCJ's trial calendar on eight separate occasions. Therefore, applicant
has had more than adequate opportunity to develop the record and provide the
court with substantial evidence. The WCJ has repeatedly reviewed applicant's
evidence and determined that none of the medical reporting was substantial
evidence on the issues presented, and further discovery was necessary.
Therefore, after receiving no additional medical reporting that addresses the
industrial causation issue, the WCJ eventually found it necessary to order an
QMEGiven great weight
Found to be the most substantial evidence concerning the issues before the court; no clear causation established for current total disability due to the industrial injury.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Lane's independent medical evaluation as the most substantial evidence but found it did not establish causation of the current total disability by the industrial injury.
From the decision · page 5independent medical evaluation with Dr. John Lane, who is widely used in this
community as an agreed medical evaluator. The reporting of Dr. Lane is found
to be the most substantial evidence concerning the issues before the court and
bears careful consideration and reliance upon the physician's expert medical
opinion on the issues presented.
At trial, applicant testified that he has been found to be 100% disabled by the
Veterans Administration as a result of injuries he sustained in the Navy prior to
the industrial injury in this case. The examining physicians have not indicated
whether applicant's current disabilities are due to the effects of the prior injury
in the Navy or a worsening of the industrial injury in question, or the natural
progression of some other disease.