In this case the issue was whether the EE’s ongoing symptoms were the continuing result of a work injury established by prior decree. Dr. Pier, in a 207, disagreed with an opinion by Dr. Phillips regarding the nature of the EE’s underlying condition that had been adopted by the prior decree. However, since Dr. Pier “entertained the validity” of Dr. Phillips’ opinions in determining whether the effects of the injury had ended, the panel found that it was not legal error for the HO to adopt Dr. Pier’s opinion.
However, the panel did remand the matter to the Board for further findings because the employer failed to file petitions on all of the dates of injury that were addressed by the prior decree. This is a reminder of the importance of filing petitions addressing all of the relevant dates of injury involved in a claim.
View complete text of Cheryl Jackson v. Pratt-Abbott Cleaners