What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration is denied.p. 9
Defendant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the June 4, 2026 Findings and Award and Orders (F&A&O) 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.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found the opinion of QME Dr. Hindocha to be substantial medical evidence supporting a 71% permanent disability rating by adding impairments due to synergistic effects on activities of daily living (ADLs), rebutting the use of the Combined Values Chart (CVC).
From the decision · page 3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
QME Dr. Hindocha's detailed reports and deposition testimony explaining the synergistic effect of multiple impairments on applicant's ADLs.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical opinion provided substantial evidence to rebut the use of the Combined Values Chart and supported the 71% permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
Applicant's unrebutted testimony regarding the impact of impairments on his activities of daily living.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the credibility and persuasiveness of Dr. Hindocha's opinion on the synergistic effect of impairments.
From the decision · page 16In his deposition testimony, Dr. Hindocha outlined the numerous ADLs impacted by each impairment (Joint Exhibits 3, 4, 5.). I found his testimony on this issue to be substantial and persuasive. The applicant testified at length regarding the manner in which his impairments impact his ADLs. Dr. Hindocha’s reporting and testimony are unrebutted. I therefore found the CVC has been rebutted, and the impairments should be added.
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.
Dr. Hindocha found applicant's left hip, lumbar spine, and right knee impairments industrially caused and assigned a 71% permanent disability rating by adding impairments due to synergistic effects on ADLs, rebutting the Combined Values Chart.
Dr. Hindocha provided detailed reports and deposition testimony explaining the impact of multiple impairments on ADLs and the rationale for adding impairments rather than using the CVC, which the WCJ and Appeals Board found substantial and persuasive.
From the decision · page 3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4660.1
Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) and Combined Values Chart (CVC) under Labor Code section 4660.1
The PDRS is prima facie evidence of permanent disability, but the CVC is rebuttable by substantial medical evidence showing synergistic effects on ADLs, allowing addition of impairments.
From the decision · page 3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
Labor Code section 3202.5
Burden of proof for permanent disability by a preponderance of the evidence
Applicant holds the burden of proof to establish permanent disability.
From the decision · page 16With respect to permanent disability, the applicant holds the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Labor Code section 3202.5.) Although the preferred method of combining impairments is using the Combined Values Chart (“CVC”), the impairments may be added if it is a more accurate reflection of the overall impairment because of the synergistic effect of the impairments. (Athens Administrators vs. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 213). In order to rebut the CVC, the applicant should establish the impact of each impairment on his activities of daily living (“ADLs”) and that either there is no overlap between the effects on those ADLs for the rated body parts or there is overlap but it increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Vigil v. County of Kern, (2024) 89 Cal. Comp. Cases 686 (en banc.)) Dr. Hindocha stated it would be reasonable to add the following impairments: lumbar spine and bilateral lower extremities. He explained: The lumbar spine bears the weight of the upper body, including the head, neck, and trunk. It allows for a wide range of motion…These are essential for everyday activities like walking, bending forward, and twisting.
Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
Rebuttal of Combined Values Chart by showing no overlap or synergistic effect on ADLs
The CVC can be rebutted by substantial medical evidence showing no overlap or a synergistic effect on ADLs, justifying addition of impairments.
From the decision · page 3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
Kite v. East Bay Municipality Util. Dist. (2012) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213
Use of addition of impairments instead of CVC when synergistic effect exists
The addition of impairments is permissible when a synergistic effect on ADLs is shown, as opposed to using the CVC.
From the decision · page 3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Detailed testimony and reports by QME Dr. Hindocha outlining the impact of impairments on multiple ADLs, supported by applicant's unrebutted testimony.
From the decision · page 16In his deposition testimony, Dr. Hindocha outlined the numerous ADLs impacted by each impairment (Joint Exhibits 3, 4, 5.). I found his testimony on this issue to be substantial and persuasive. The applicant testified at length regarding the manner in which his impairments impact his ADLs. Dr. Hindocha’s reporting and testimony are unrebutted. I therefore found the CVC has been rebutted, and the impairments should be added.
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.