ADJ12214919 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

WCAB affirmed the November 4, 2025 joint Findings, Award, and Order except amended to exclude right shoulder and admitted Defendant's Exhibit C into evidence.

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's November 4, 2025 Findings, Award, and Order; WCJ recommended granting reconsideration only to amend findings to exclude right shoulder; WCAB granted reconsideration to amend findings and admit Defendant's Exhibit C into evidence.

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.

Permanent total disabilityApplicant prevailedright wrist · bladder · bowel · cervical spine · lumbar spine · psyche · right hand · headaches · sleep dysfunction · right ankle

The WCJ found permanent total disability based on combined industrial injuries to multiple body parts with substantial medical and vocational evidence supporting total disability and no apportionment to non-industrial causes. The WCAB affirmed the joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates, excluding the right shoulder, and found defendant failed to prove apportionment of work restrictions.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings, Award, and Order" (F&A) issued on November 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that while employed by applicant as a home care aide, applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 6, 2019, to her right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, right wrist, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 19, 2019 while employed by defendant to her low back, right ankle, head, right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ found that the combined effects of the industrial injuries resulted in applicant sustaining a single combined award of permanent total disability. The WCJ issued an award to applicant, less an award of attorney's fees according to a DEU calculation.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant sustained industrial injuries on May 6, 2019 and March 19, 2019 to multiple body parts including right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, and right ankle.

Favours Applicant prevailed

These combined injuries formed the basis for the permanent total disability award.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings, Award, and Order" (F&A) issued on November 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that while employed by applicant as a home care aide, applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 6, 2019, to her right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, right wrist, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 19, 2019 while employed by defendant to her low back, right ankle, head, right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ found that the combined effects of the industrial injuries resulted in applicant sustaining a single combined award of permanent total disability. The WCJ issued an award to applicant, less an award of attorney's fees according to a DEU calculation.

Medical evidence from Dr. Kuyt showed neurologic impairment to bladder and bowel caused by additive effects of both industrial injuries, with impairment 100% industrial and apportionment between injuries speculative.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates.

From the decision · page 14While it may be true that other doctors apportioned applicant's disability, we find the reporting of Dr. Kuyt constitutes substantial medical evidence on the issue of apportionment. Dr. Kuyt adequately explained that the additive effects of both injuries contributed to the nerve damage affecting the bladder. Dr. Kuyt clearly explained that suggesting what percentage each injury contributed to nerve damage would be speculative. Thus, applicant is entitled to a joint and several award of permanent disability across both dates of injury.

Applicant's vocational expert found applicant not feasible for vocational rehabilitation and unable to compete on the open labor market, while defendant's expert provided no opinion on these issues.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported finding of permanent total disability based on vocational evidence and failure of defendant to prove apportionment of work restrictions.

From the decision · page 13Here, applicant's vocational expert conducted vocational testing, examined applicant, reviewed the industrial work restrictions assigned by the medical doctors, and found that applicant was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation and could not compete on the open labor market. The opinion of applicant's expert appears well-reasoned.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 4663(c)

Labor Code section 4663(c) requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination of permanent disability.

The Board applied this standard to require apportionment determinations and to evaluate apportionment evidence.

From the decision · page 11(c) In order for a physician's report to be considered complete on the issue of permanent disability, the report must include an apportionment determination. A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by other factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, including prior industrial injuries.

Benson v. Permanente Med. Group (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 1620

Benson v. Permanente Med. Group (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 1620 explains joint and several awards of permanent disability across multiple injury dates when disabilities cannot reasonably be parceled out.

The Board applied Benson to affirm a joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates.

From the decision · page 132. Apportionment under Benson In our en banc opinion in Benson, we explained that limited situations may exist where a joint and several award of permanent disability may issue across multiple dates of injury. (Benson v. Permanente Med. Group, (2007), 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 1620, 1634 (Appeals Board en banc), (emphasis added); aff'd Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535.) Where some aspects of the industrially caused permanent disability form two or more separate industrial injuries that cannot reasonably be parceled out, then a combined joint and several award of permanent disability must issue even though other aspects of the industrially caused permanent disability from those injuries can be parceled out with reasonable medical probability. (See, e.g. Alea North American Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Herrera) (2018) 84 Cal. Comp. Cases 17 [2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 123] (writ den.); Flowserve Corp. v. Workers'

Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46

Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 requires vocational evidence to address apportionment of work restrictions for permanent total disability.

The Board applied Nunes to require vocational evidence addressing apportionment of work restrictions and found defendant failed to prove apportionment.

From the decision · page 13Nunes I further held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make medical determinations in a case, including determinations on the issue of apportionment. The Board further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability, and that vocational evidence must address apportionment, but that a vocational evaluator may not opine on issues that require expert medical evidence. (See, id.) The Board affirmed these holdings in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (August 29, 2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894] ("Nunes II").

ADJ12214919 · February 20, 2026

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