Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Contra Costa County v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dahl) (2015) 240 Cal. App. 4th 746
Scheduled rating rebutted if injury impairs rehabilitation and causes greater loss of future earning capacity (Dahl)
Applied to assess vocational rehabilitation potential
Labor Code section 4660
Permanent disability is determined by whole person impairment and effect on future earning capacity under Labor Code section 4660 and AMA Guides
Applied to assess permanent disability rating
From the decision · page 5Section 4660 provides that permanent disability is determined by consideration of whole
person impairment within the four corners of the AMA Guides, as applied by the Permanent
Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) in light of the medical record and the effect of the injury on
the worker's future earning capacity. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th
1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565] ["permanent disability payments are intended to compensate
workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity"];
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018)
27 Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680] (Fitzpatrick); Milpitas Unified School Dist.
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]
(Guzman).)
Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213
If impairments have a synergistic effect greater than combined values chart, impairments should be added for accuracy (Kite)
Applied to justify adding impairments rather than combining
From the decision · page 6In Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases
213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or
more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater
Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
To rebut combined values chart, applicant must show activities of daily living impacted by each impairment and how they overlap or amplify (Vigil)
Applied to evaluate methodology for adding impairments
From the decision · page 7Subsequent to Kite, the Appeals Board issued Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89
Cal.Comp.Cases 686, 688§ 689 (Appeals Board en banc) wherein it was determined that if an
applicant seeks to rebut the CVC and add rather than combine impairments, the applicant must
establish that 1) the activities of daily living (ADLs) impacted by each impairment, and 2) the
ADLs either do not overlap, or overlap in such a way that it increases or amplifies the impact of
the overlapping ADLs.
LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 48 Cal.Comp.Cases 587
Scheduled rating can be rebutted by showing diminished future earning capacity greater than reflected (LeBoeuf)
Applied to consider vocational evidence for rebutting scheduled rating
From the decision · page 4Petitioner A challenges the Finding regarding permanent disability, asserting that
the undersigned WCJ should have found 100% permanent disability based upon
the vocational expert reporting of Steve Ramirez dated February 29, 2024
[Applicant's Exhibit 1], citing LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983)
48 Cal. Comp. Cases 587. The crux of Petitioner A's argument is that despite the
ability to do limited construction work, and care for his girlfriend, and use a
computer, there is no ability to compete in the open labor market.