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

A hospital laboratory worker was exposed to a strong chemical odor at her workplace, causing respiratory symptoms such as chest tightness, difficulty breathing, and wheezing. Despite prior respiratory conditions, including asthma and allergies, the worker's symptoms worsened after the exposure, requiring increased medication and preventing her from returning to work in the same environment (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded the worker 26% permanent partial disability benefits (paras 1, 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Employer (Appellant): Argued that the WCJ erred in excluding medical testimony from two doctors, that the finding of permanent partial disability was unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the WCJ improperly assigned an impairment rating without expert testimony (paras 1, 6, 11).
• Worker (Appellee): Contended that the employer's appeal should be dismissed due to procedural deficiencies, including failure to file requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, and failure to follow the two-step process required by precedent (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the WCJ erred in excluding the testimony of two doctors due to ex parte communications (para 1).
• Whether the WCJ's finding of permanent partial disability was supported by substantial evidence (para 1).
• Whether the WCJ erred in assigning an impairment rating without expert medical testimony (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ's decision and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the employer (paras 1, 20).

Reasons

Per Benny E. Flores J. (Rudy S. Apodaca and James J. Wechsler JJ. concurring):

• The Court determined that the employer's appeal was properly before it, rejecting the worker's procedural objections. The issues raised on appeal were sufficiently clear and had been addressed in the lower court (paras 7-10).
• The WCJ erred in assigning an impairment rating without expert testimony from a pulmonologist. The American Medical Association (AMA) Guides require that impairment ratings for respiratory conditions involving preexisting ailments, such as asthma, be determined by a lung specialist. The independent medical examiner, who was not a pulmonologist, declined to assign a rating, and the WCJ lacked the expertise to do so (paras 11-16).
• The worker failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing a pulmonologist's impairment rating. Allowing additional testimony on remand would improperly give the worker a second opportunity to establish her claim (paras 17-19).