ADJ11354883 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Findings and Award issued June 26, 2020, rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings

Petition for Reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; WCJ Report filed recommending denial of reconsideration; decision after reconsideration issued rescinding prior Findings and Award and returning matter to trial level for further proceedings

Read the official 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.

ApportionmentRemandedheart · hypertension

The WCJ erred in using a 'range of evidence' approach rather than the method mandated by Brodie, which requires subtracting the old rating from the new rating to calculate the percentage of disability attributable to the new injury.

From the decision · page 1OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION We previously granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on June 26, 2020, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), in order to further study the factual and legal issues. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant's permanent partial disability rated to 75% after apportionment per Labor Code1, section 4664, but used a "range of evidence" analysis and reduced by the value of the permanent disability award by the monetary value of a prior award of permanent disability and did not subtract the percentage. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred because the opinion does not follow the California Supreme Court's holding in Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 1313, 57 Cal. Rptr.

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.

QMERelied upon · heart

Found applicant had supraventricular tachycardia requiring ablation, left ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiogram, hypertension and chronic pain; assigned 35% WPI for hypertensive heart disease and 20% WPI for supraventricular tachycardia; combined disability of 75% before apportionment.

From the decision · page 2In ADJ11354883 (present case) Dr. Glassman found that the applicant had supraventricular tachycardia that required ablation, left ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiogram, hypertension and chronic pain. Dr. Glassman assigned a 35% WPI for the hypertensive heart disease and 20% WPI for the supraventricular tachycardia (Jt. Ex. 2). The parties had the report of Dr. Glassman rated by the Disability evaluation Unit which bound a combined disability of 75% before apportionment (60% for left ventricular hypertrophy on echocardiogram and 38% for the arrhythmia).

QMERelied upon · heart

Found impairment to the heart as a conduction abnormality known as bundle branch block and left ventricular relaxation abnormality, hallmarks of hypertensive heart disease; prior award for 18% permanent disability for heart/hypertension.

From the decision · page 2the applicant sustained an admitted cumulative trauma during the period of March 6, 2006 to June 15, 2018. He sustained injury to his heart, hypertension, back, neck and bilateral knees while working as a correctional officer. (MOH/SOE page 2:3-8). He also sustained a prior award for 18% for heart/hypertension in ADJ9126146 for a cumulative trauma period of March 6, 2006 to November 12, 2012. The parties utilized Dr. Stuart Kramer as the PQME for the heart in ADJ9126146; and utilized Dr. Jerrold Glassman for the heart in ADJ11354883 (the current case). (See Jt. Exhibits 3 and 4). In ADJ9126146 Dr. Kramer found impairment to the heart as "a conduction abnormality known as a bundle branch block" and "left ventricular (LV) relaxation abnormality which he opined was one of the hallmarks of hypertensive end-organ damage also known as hypertensive heart disease (ADJ9126146 Dr. Kramer Report).

ADJ11354883 · April 25, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page