Opinion ID: 2640157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 4] Nagle raises these issues: I. Whether the Medical Commission's decision that Mr. Nagle was not entitled to permanent total disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the standing case law. II. Whether the Medical Commission's decision that Mr. Nagle's medical treatment for his wrist and hip was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the substantial evidence presented at the hearing. The Division responded: I. Whether the Medical Commission Hearing Panel's determination, that Mr. Nagle failed to prove his entitlement to permanent total disability benefits, was arbitrary or capricious? II. Whether the Medical Commission Hearing Panel's determination, that Mr. Nagle failed to prove the relatedness between his 1987 left foot injury and his recent wrist and hip injuries, was arbitrary or capricious?