What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.p. 8
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire 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 found 33% permanent disability based on medical and vocational evidence, rejecting applicant's claim for 100% total disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the merits and record completeness.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Orders, Awards issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 12, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
WCJ found 33% permanent disability based on medical and vocational evidence.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding formed the basis of the original award and was challenged by applicant.
From the decision · page 11. Applicant has sustained 33% PD 2. There was no apportionment 3. Attorney fees are 15%
Applicant's vocational expert report supported 100% total disability claim.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant relied on this report to argue for a higher disability rating.
WCJ found defense vocational expert's opinions more persuasive than applicant's expert.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This credibility determination influenced the disability rating outcome.
Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further review of merits and record completeness.
Favours neutral
This procedural action defers final decision and opens the record for further consideration.
From the decision · page 6Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. We believe that this action is necessary to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue a just and reasoned decision. Reconsideration is therefore granted for this purpose and for such further proceedings as we may hereafter determine to be appropriate.
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.
Issued at least eight reports accounting for an 18% whole person impairment on the orthopedic side.
Provided psychiatric evaluation accounting for a 9% whole person impairment on the psychiatric side.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code §4660; Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313
Permanent disability is determined by whole person impairment and effect on future earning capacity under AMA Guides and PDRS.
Applied to assess permanent disability rating in this case.
From the decision · page 4III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Section 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”];
Ogilvie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262; LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 234
Scheduled rating may be rebutted by showing greater diminished future earning capacity due to injury and rehabilitation impairment.
Considered in evaluating applicant's claim for 100% total disability.
From the decision · page 5Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 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).) However, the scheduled rating is not absolute. (Fitzpatrick, supra, at pp. 619-620.) A rating obtained pursuant to the PDRS may be rebutted by showing an applicant’s diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the PDRS. (Ogilvie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624] (Ogilvie); Contra Costa County v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dahl) (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 746 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 1119] (Dahl).) In analyzing the issue of whether and how the PDRS could be rebutted, the Court of Appeal has observed:
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.