What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and upheld the WCJ's finding that the applicant's occupational group number was 460.
Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's Partial Findings of Fact and Orders dated June 24, 2022, challenging the occupational group number assigned to the applicant.
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 finding that the applicant's occupational group number was 460 was supported by credible testimony that the applicant performed duties consistent with that occupational group, including restraining aggressive patients, which was not contradicted by the defendant.
From the decision · page 3Applicant's uncontroverted testimony that he was required to assist in the physical restraint of combative patients provides evidentiary support for the WCJ's finding that applicant performed duties consistent with occupational group number 460. (Holt, supra.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant testified that his job duties included restraining aggressive patients and working in an area with the most aggressive patients where no orderlies were assigned.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credible testimony supported the WCJ's finding that the applicant performed duties consistent with occupational group number 460, which carries a higher disability factor.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified that his responsibilities included breaking up fights initiated by patients and restraining patients if they were aggressive. (MOH/SOE, June 21, 2022, 6:23-25; amended MOH/SOE, issued July 5, 2022, 7:17-19.) Moreover, applicant testified that he was assigned to an area with the most aggressive patients, but where no orderlies were assigned. (MOH/SOE, June 21, 2022, 7:2-5; amended MOH/SOE, issued July 5, 2022, 7:21-24.) The WCJ found applicant's testimony credible and we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great
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.
Evaluated applicant once, diagnosed multiple contusions and sprains, and found factors of permanent disability.
From the decision · page 5On October 28, 2018, the Applicant designated as his new primary treating physician, Edwin Haronian, M.D., who evaluated the Applicant one time, diagnosed a right shoulder contusion, bilateral knee sprain, bilateral ankle sprain and right lower extremity contusion and found factors of permanent disability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 4660(b)
The Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities provides a list of occupations and occupational group numbers to determine permanent disability ratings.
The occupational group number affects the percentage of permanent disability owed to the applicant.
From the decision · page 6The Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities provide, pursuant to Labor Code § 4660(b), a list of occupations and occupational group numbers. The determination of the Applicant's occupational group number is important because, along with the age of the applicant at the time of injury, it will adjust the percentage of permanent disability that will be owed by a defendant to an applicant. [Labor Code § 4660.1; National Kinney of California v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Casillas) (1980) 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 1266, 1270]
The actual physical demands of the work must be considered to determine the occupational group number, not just the job title.
The WCJ considered the applicant's actual duties, including restraining aggressive patients, to assign occupational group number 460.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony that he was required to assist in the physical restraint of combative patients.
From the decision · page 3Applicant's uncontroverted testimony that he was required to assist in the physical restraint of combative patients provides evidentiary support for the WCJ's finding that applicant performed duties consistent with occupational group number 460. (Holt, supra.)
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.