What the panel ordered
Petitions for reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings and Award of May 28, 2026 rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision.p. 6
Petitions for reconsideration filed by both applicant and defendant challenging the WCJ's Findings and Award of May 28, 2026; matter returned to trial level for further development and decision.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ's permanent disability rating and apportionment were challenged by both parties; the medical evidence was found to be stale and incomplete, requiring further development of the record and decision on all outstanding issues.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Award of May 28, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as a housekeeper during a cumulative period ending April 24, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to her cervical and lumbar spine causing permanent disability of 38%. In finding permanent disability of 38%, it was found that apportionment of permanent disability was indicated to previous injuries, but not to applicant’s diabetes condition (Opinion on Decision at p. 13). Additionally, despite agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Peter Mandell’s opinion that applicant’s lumbar permanent disability and cervical permanent disability be added rather than combined utilizing the combined values chart (CVC) of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, the WCJ utilized the CVC to rate the applicant’s permanent disability (Opinion on Decision at p. 12).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The AME evaluation by Dr. Mandell was conducted in 2018 and was the only examination by this physician.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The evaluation was considered stale and incomplete, undermining the substantial evidence basis for the permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 3Applicant was evaluated by AME Dr. Mandell on April 11, 2018. This was the only time applicant was examined by Dr. Mandell, although Dr. Mandell issued various supplemental reports
Applicant did not schedule a re-examination with Dr. Mandell by the deadline, and discovery was closed by the WCJ.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This affected the completeness of the medical record and the ability to update the AME's opinion.
From the decision · page 4Applicant did not schedule AME re-exam with Dr. Mandell until after the DOR was filed, and shortly before the 2/9 MSC, despite being allotted until 1/5/26 to contact Dr. Mandell to schedule any re-evaluation. The parties were also sent an email on 11/10/25 with the Minutes of Hearing which stated, “Deadline for AA to contact Dr. Mandell regarding re-evaluation is 1/5/26.” No due diligence shown by applicant in scheduling the Dr. Mandell exam, so discovery is closed.
New case law has developed regarding rebuttal of the combined values chart and vocational rebuttal since the last reports were issued.
Favours neutral
This necessitates further development of the record to consider these legal changes.
From the decision · page 5development of the record and decision. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Additionally, since the AME and the vocational experts last issued reports in this case, new case law has developed regarding issues that may be relevant to their reporting in this matter. (See, e.g., Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [Appeals Bd. en banc]; Nunes v. State of California (20223) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) We note that the WCJ found the AME’s discussion of apportionment to applicant’s non-industrial diabetes condition inadequate, a finding challenged by defendant in its Petition.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Agreed Medical Evaluator Dr. Mandell opined that the applicant's lumbar and cervical permanent disabilities should be added rather than combined using the combined values chart (CVC) of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities.
The WCJ did not follow Dr. Mandell's opinion to add the disabilities rather than combine them using the CVC, which was a point of contention in the petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Award of May 28, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as a housekeeper during a cumulative period ending April 24, 2017, applicant sustained industrial injury to her cervical and lumbar spine causing permanent disability of 38%. In finding permanent disability of 38%, it was found that apportionment of permanent disability was indicated to previous injuries, but not to applicant’s diabetes condition (Opinion on Decision at p. 13). Additionally, despite agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Peter Mandell’s opinion that applicant’s lumbar permanent disability and cervical permanent disability be added rather than combined utilizing the combined values chart (CVC) of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, the WCJ utilized the CVC to rate the applicant’s permanent disability (Opinion on Decision at p. 12).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Place v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372
When medical evidence or opinion is incomplete, stale, or based on inaccurate history or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence.
The Board found the AME's 2018 evaluation stale and incomplete, requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 5development of the record and decision. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Additionally, since the AME and the vocational experts last issued reports in this case, new case law has developed regarding issues that may be relevant to their reporting in this matter. (See, e.g., Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [Appeals Bd. en banc]; Nunes v. State of California (20223) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) We note that the WCJ found the AME’s discussion of apportionment to applicant’s non-industrial diabetes condition inadequate, a finding challenged by defendant in its Petition.
Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686; Nunes v. State of California (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741
New case law developments regarding rebuttal of the combined values chart and vocational rebuttal must be considered in further proceedings.
The Board noted new case law developments relevant to the medical and vocational evidence in this matter.
From the decision · page 5development of the record and decision. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Additionally, since the AME and the vocational experts last issued reports in this case, new case law has developed regarding issues that may be relevant to their reporting in this matter. (See, e.g., Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [Appeals Bd. en banc]; Nunes v. State of California (20223) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) We note that the WCJ found the AME’s discussion of apportionment to applicant’s non-industrial diabetes condition inadequate, a finding challenged by defendant in its Petition.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The medical evidence was stale and incomplete, with the last AME evaluation in 2018 and subsequent medical and vocational evidence not reflecting current condition.
From the decision · page 3Applicant was evaluated by AME Dr. Mandell on April 11, 2018. This was the only time applicant was examined by Dr. Mandell, although Dr. Mandell issued various supplemental reports
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.