Applicant sustained injury to his right hand resulting in partial amputation of two fingers, constituting a violent act under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(A).
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the exception to the prohibition on increasing permanent disability for psychiatric disorder due to a violent act.
From the decision · page 7Here, applicant's right ring and right middle fingers were partially amputated when he fell
off a ladder while holding a running hedge trimmer that he pushed away from his face and torso.
Similar to the facts in Lopez, we conclude that the mechanism of applicant's injury here can be
characterized as resulting from extreme or intense force, constituting a "violent act" under the
exception found in section 4660.1(c)(2)(A).
Applicant's hand injury was catastrophic under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B) due to severity, permanent disability, and impact on activities of daily living.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the exception to the prohibition on increasing permanent disability for psychiatric disorder due to catastrophic injury.
From the decision · page 8Here, applicant sustained an injury to his dominant right hand, severing three of his fingers,
and requiring the partial amputation of his right ring finger and his right middle finger. (Applicant
Exhibit 4, Dr. Kipperman's report dated January 6, 2020, p. 2.) He continues to experience
constant dull pain and is sensitive to touch where the amputations occurred. (Id. at p. 3.) He has
difficulty reaching, gripping, grasping, holding and manipulating with his hands. (Id. at p. 4.) He
has difficulty with repetitive motions and forceful activating with his arms and hands. (Ibid.) He
has difficulties with ADLs in using the bathroom, brushing his teeth, bathing, washing, trimming
nails, dressing, combing his hair, eating, drinking, writing, texting, keyboarding, cooking,
cleaning, etc. (Ibid.) He no longer goes fishing or plays soccer because he needs to protect his
hand. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) He is no longer able to work and has not worked since the accident. (Id. at
UEBTF failed to raise the issue of Labor Code section 4660.1(c) at trial, making it an improper issue for reconsideration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This procedural fact led to denial of reconsideration on this issue.
From the decision · page 5UEBTF contends that section 4660.1(c) prohibits increasing applicant's permanent
disability because of a psychiatric disorder that is a compensable consequence of a physical injury.
(§ 4660.1, subd. (c).) However, as the WCJ points out, this was not an issue raised at trial or in
any of UEBTF's pre-trial pleadings. (Report, p. 2; UEBTS Trial Brief dated November 5, 2021.)
Due process requires the parties to have notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the
issues in disputes. (See Gilbert v. City of Sunnyvale (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1279 ["The
essence of procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to respond"]; Rucker v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805]; Gangwish v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 [66 Cal. Comp. Cases 584].) A
fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses;
introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. (See Gangwish, supra, at p. 1295;
Rucker, supra, at pp. 157-158 citing Kaiser Co. v. I.A.C. (Baskin) (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 54, 58
[17 Cal.Comp.Cases 21]; Katzin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 703, 710
[57 Cal.Comp.Cases 230].) Therefore, the issue of section 4660.1(c), is not an appropriate issue
for reconsideration here.