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

• Worker Rudy Salazar sustained an injury to his left shoulder while carrying metal planks during his employment at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Following the injury, he filed for workers' compensation benefits. The extent of the Worker's impairment became a contested issue, with differing medical opinions on the appropriate method to calculate his impairment rating (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Contended that the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred in determining his impairment rating based on the "diagnosis-based method" rather than the "range of motion rating method," which resulted in a lower impairment rating of one percent. Argued that the WCJ failed to consider relevant evidence that would support a higher impairment rating (para 6).
• Self-Insured Employer-Appellee: Argued in favor of the WCJ's decision to adopt the "diagnosis-based method" for calculating the Worker's impairment, which resulted in a one percent whole person impairment rating. Supported the WCJ's findings and conclusions regarding the appropriate method for calculating impairment (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in determining the Worker's impairment rating based on the "diagnosis-based method" rather than the "range of motion rating method."
• Whether the WCJ failed to consider relevant evidence in determining the Worker's impairment rating (para 6).

Disposition

• The decision of the Workers’ Compensation Judge to award benefits based on a one percent whole person impairment rating was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Julie J. Vargas concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the WCJ's decision to use the "diagnosis-based method" for calculating the Worker's impairment. The Court noted that the WCJ had discretion to choose between conflicting medical opinions regarding the Worker's impairment rating. The WCJ's decision was based on a comprehensive review of medical records, expert testimonies, and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The Court highlighted discrepancies in the Worker's range of motion documented by multiple providers and concerns regarding the credibility of the Worker and his treating physician, Dr. Pupiales. The Court also noted that the WCJ considered the totality of evidence, including medical records and observations of the Worker during trial, before concluding that the diagnosis-based method was appropriate for calculating the Worker's impairment. The Court rejected the Worker's arguments against the WCJ's decision, including claims that the WCJ failed to consider objective measurement criteria and erred in interpreting the AMA Guides. The Court emphasized that the AMA Guides require flexibility in application and that the WCJ has some discretion in determining the appropriate impairment rating (paras 7-16).