AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker-Appellant appealed from a compensation order issued by a workers' compensation judge (WCJ), challenging the WCJ's interpretation of the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides in favor of one doctor's impairment rating over another's and the ruling that the statute of limitations had run on his claim for increased impairment value. The claim for increased impairment value was based on an assertion that Dr. Legant's impairment rating assigned on April 16, 2013, was incorrectly calculated.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Contended that the WCJ wrongfully interpreted the AMA Guides by favoring one doctor’s impairment rating over another's and erred by ruling that the statute of limitations had run on his claim for increased impairment value, asserting that Dr. Legant’s impairment rating was incorrectly calculated (paras 2-3).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in interpreting the AMA Guides by favoring one doctor’s impairment rating over another's.
• Whether the WCJ erred by ruling that the statute of limitations had run on the Worker's claim for increased impairment value based on the assertion that Dr. Legant’s impairment rating was incorrectly calculated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation order issued by the WCJ (para 9).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge, DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge concurring):
  The Court found no error in the WCJ's decision to credit Dr. Legant’s impairment rating over Dr. Whalen’s. The WCJ's ruling was based on the determination that the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) used by Dr. Legant was appropriate and that there was no conflicting medical testimony on that matter. Furthermore, Dr. Whalen was found to be less trained in performing impairment ratings and less reliable as an expert witness (paras 3-4).
  The Court disagreed with the Worker's contention that it failed to review the substance of the doctors' opinions and apply the AMA Guides, stating that the Worker did not provide citations to applicable provisions of the AMA Guides or identify specific reasons why the WCJ erred in choosing Dr. Legant’s impairment rating. The Court concluded that the Worker's arguments did not demonstrate that the WCJ's decision involved a nondiscretionary medical or legal decision that was misapplied (para 5).
  Regarding the claim for increased impairment value, the Court acknowledged the Worker's correction that the WCJ ruled the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, not moot. However, the Court maintained its position that a ruling on the statute of limitations was unnecessary because the WCJ had correctly assessed impairment back in April 2013. The Court saw no reason why reliance on this basis for affirmance would be unfair to the Worker (para 7).