What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; WCJ's finding of 100% permanent total disability upheld.
Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order, challenging the finding of 100% permanent total disability and requesting further development of the record.
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 and Appeals Board relied on the AME Dr. Lawrence Richman's thorough examination, detailed reports, and deposition testimony, which were supported by substantial medical evidence, to find the applicant permanently and totally disabled. The vocational expert's opinions were found unpersuasive and not substantial evidence to rebut the AME's opinion or the applicant's credible testimony.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back and left shoulder while employed as a caregiver, Occupational Group Number 340, on August 16, 2017. The WCJ also found compensable consequences in the form of an intraoperative stroke affecting the head, right upper extremity, gait, right lower extremity and facial weakness. The WCJ deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her brain, throat (dysphasia)1, and psyche. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained paralysis of right upper and lower limbs due to industrial stroke during surgery.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This paralysis rendered the applicant unable to return to gainful employment, supporting the finding of permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back and left shoulder while employed as a caregiver, Occupational Group Number 340, on August 16, 2017. The WCJ also found compensable consequences in the form of an intraoperative stroke affecting the head, right upper extremity, gait, right lower extremity and facial weakness. The WCJ deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her brain, throat (dysphasia)1, and psyche. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.
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.
Applicant is permanently and totally disabled due to paralysis of right upper and lower limbs and requires attendant care; vocational expert opinions that applicant is employable are unpersuasive and not substantial evidence.
The AME's opinion was supported by substantial medical evidence and was relied upon by the WCJ and Appeals Board over the vocational expert's contrary opinion.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the December 12, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Order (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), wherein the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back and left shoulder while employed as a caregiver, Occupational Group Number 340, on August 16, 2017. The WCJ also found compensable consequences in the form of an intraoperative stroke affecting the head, right upper extremity, gait, right lower extremity and facial weakness. The WCJ deferred the issue of whether applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her brain, throat (dysphasia)1, and psyche. The WCJ further found that applicant's injury caused permanent total disability of 100%.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782
An agreed medical evaluator's opinion is presumed correct if supported by substantial medical evidence.
The WCJ and Appeals Board applied this presumption to rely on the AME Dr. Richman's opinion over the vocational expert's report.
From the decision · page 3We adopt and incorporate the statement of facts and reasoning set forth by the WCJ in her Report, and note by way of clarification that when the WCJ indicates that she presumes the AME to be correct so long as his opinions are supported by substantial medical evidence, she is undoubtedly referring to the following long standing opinion of the California Court of Appeal in Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, 782 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 114]:
Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1321
Permanent disability is the irreversible residual of an injury causing impairment of earning capacity or use of a member, compensating for physical loss and loss of future earning capacity.
The Board cited this definition to frame the nature of permanent disability in this case.
From the decision · page 4Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111, the state's highest court noted that permanent disability is "understood as `the irreversible residual of an injury." Citing State Comp. Ins. Fund v. I.A.C. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 45, 52, the court observed that permanent disability "causes impairment of earning capacity, impairment of the normal use of a member, or a competitive handicap in the open labor market.'" The court concluded that permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for "both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity." (Brodie, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1320.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credible testimony of the applicant regarding inability to return to work
From the decision · page 5effectively rebuts the testimony of applicant that she cannot return back to work in any capacity
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.