What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on March 23, 2026, of the Board's March 16, 2026 Decision after Reconsideration affirming the WCJ's December 17, 2025 Findings & Award except amending disability to 59% without apportionment.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold March 16, 2026.
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 Board found that the medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence because they failed to provide adequate medical reasoning connecting the impairment to other factors, thus denying defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.
From the decision · page 12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Medical opinions on apportionment were conclusory and lacked medical reasoning connecting impairment to other factors, failing to meet the substantial evidence standard.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure led the Board to deny defendant's petition for reconsideration on apportionment.
From the decision · page 12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.
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.
Initially opined 40% apportionment to pre-existing nonindustrial degenerative changes and prior surgeries, later changed to 60%, but failed to provide medical reasoning connecting impairment to these factors, thus not substantial evidence.
The Board found Dr. Sweet's apportionment opinions conclusory and lacking connective medical reasoning, thus not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 11or affected stability, the doctor states "the bilateral knees are apportioned as 40% to pre-existing, nonindustrial degenerative changes, and the prior surgeries." (Exhibit 4, Stephan Sweet, M.D., November 2, 2023, p. 25.) There is simply no discussion of how a factor such as obesity affects applicant's knee pain, range of motion, or stability.
Assigned 28% WPI with 70% apportionment to non-industrial factors but provided conclusory reasoning insufficient to meet burden of proof for apportionment.
The Board found Dr. Jahng's apportionment opinion conclusory and lacking reasoning connecting impairment to other factors, thus not substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 12evidence sufficient to meet defendant's burden. To support apportionment a medical opinion must provide the reasoning connecting the specific AMA Guide impairment sustained by the applicant to "other factors," not just the injury in vague and general terms, as provided here. Dr. Jahng's opinions are not substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
A medical opinion on apportionment must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and must set forth reasoning explaining how other factors cause disability.
The Board applied this standard to reject medical opinions lacking adequate reasoning connecting impairment to other factors for apportionment.
From the decision · page 7To be substantial evidence on the issue of the approximate percentages of permanent disability due to the direct results of the injury and the approximate percentage of permanent disability due to other factors, 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. Furthermore, if a physician opines that a percentage of disability is caused by a degenerative disease, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and "how and why" it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Escobedo, supra, at pp. 620-621.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical opinions on apportionment lacked substantial evidence due to conclusory reasoning without medical explanation connecting impairment to other factors.
From the decision · page 12Based on the record before us, we discern no reason to disturb our prior Decision and will therefore deny defendant's Petition.
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.