What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied; WCJ decision affirmed.p. 10
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued on April 1, 2026 by the WCJ, which found applicant sustained an industrial injury resulting in 100% permanent disability without apportionment.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold December 19, 2025.
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.
PQME Dr. Hyman provided substantial medical evidence that the applicant's permanent disability was entirely industrial, refusing to apportion any part to nonindustrial risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or genetic predisposition, which were only risk factors and not direct causes of the permanent disability. Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish apportionment.
From the decision · page 6Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565]; Marsh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787].) The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 927-928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].) Instead, apportionment of permanent disability is “based on causation” and the “employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained an industrial heart attack on May 12, 2023, caused by heavy physical exertion at work in a hot environment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact establishes the industrial cause of the permanent disability, supporting the award without apportionment.
From the decision · page 2The parties stipulated that applicant, while employed as a lineman on May 12, 2023, claimed to have sustained industrial injury to his circulatory system in the form of a heart attack. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), 01/07/2025, 2:7-11.) The parties proceeded to trial on January 7, 2025. Applicant testified in pertinent part as follows: On May 12, 2023, he experienced a heart attack while working in temperatures ranging from the high 80s to low 90s. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 5:25-26.) He felt weak, fatigued, and developed chest pain while changing telephone poles after lifting transformers and cross arms weighing between and 90 pounds and pulling 30 to 40 pounds of wire with a hoist. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 5:31-38.) Emergency personnel diagnosed the heart attack using a medical device at the job site. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 6:12-14.) He subjectively attributed his injury to the heavy lifting, the heat, and the stress of working in the air with an unfamiliar coworker. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 7:21-25.) Emergency responders transported him to St.
PQME Dr. Hyman found no pre-existing symptomatic coronary artery disease and refused to apportion any permanent disability to nonindustrial risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or genetic predisposition.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical opinion was relied upon to deny apportionment and award 100% permanent disability industrially caused.
From the decision · page 3medical treatment or work restrictions for his lungs or smoking habits, and no physician ever advised him of a pre-existing heart condition or an increased risk of a heart attack. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 9:30-31, 40-41.) He also passed annual Department of Transportation physical examinations that included chest X-rays. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 9:46-47 to 10:1-2.) In his report dated April 16, 2025, followed by his supplemental report dated June 24, 2025, PQME Dr. Hyman, after evaluating applicant, diagnosed him with a myocardial infarction, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and chronic congestive heart failure. (Joint Ex. CC, pp. 5, 6.) PQME Dr. Hyman determined the mechanism of injury involved heavy lifting in a hot environment that precipitated the heart attack. (Id. at p.
Defendant delayed over two years before requesting medical releases and had early notice of the injury, issuing a denial seven days after the heart attack.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This conduct led to rejection of defendant's due process claim and supported affirming the award.
From the decision · page 5Under the doctrine of invited error, where a party sits on their rights and delays in conducting discovery, they cannot now claim a denial of their due process rights resulting from that delay. (Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Zuniga) (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1167-1168 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1290] This conduct can include causing unnecessary delay by 5
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.
Diagnosed myocardial infarction, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and chronic congestive heart failure caused by heavy lifting in a hot environment; assigned 75% whole person impairment; refused to apportion any permanent disability to nonindustrial risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or genetic predisposition, finding the entire disability industrial.
Applicant lacked any pre-existing symptomatic coronary artery disease prior to the industrial exertion; heavy physical exertion at work caused the acute myocardial infarction; nonindustrial risk factors were only risk factors, not direct causes of permanent disability.
From the decision · page 3medical treatment or work restrictions for his lungs or smoking habits, and no physician ever advised him of a pre-existing heart condition or an increased risk of a heart attack. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 9:30-31, 40-41.) He also passed annual Department of Transportation physical examinations that included chest X-rays. (MOH/SOE, 01/07/2025, 9:46-47 to 10:1-2.) In his report dated April 16, 2025, followed by his supplemental report dated June 24, 2025, PQME Dr. Hyman, after evaluating applicant, diagnosed him with a myocardial infarction, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and chronic congestive heart failure. (Joint Ex. CC, pp. 5, 6.) PQME Dr. Hyman determined the mechanism of injury involved heavy lifting in a hot environment that precipitated the heart attack. (Id. at p.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Apportionment of permanent disability is based on causation of the permanent disability, not just causation of the injury; burden of proof to establish apportionment falls on defendant; nonindustrial risk factors that only increase susceptibility to injury do not justify apportionment.
The Appeals Board applied these standards to reject defendant's argument for apportionment to nonindustrial risk factors, affirming the award of 100% permanent disability without apportionment.
From the decision · page 6Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565]; Marsh v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787].) The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 927-928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].) Instead, apportionment of permanent disability is “based on causation” and the “employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant delayed over two years before requesting medical releases, causing delay in obtaining out-of-state medical records; defendant had early notice of injury and issued denial seven days after injury.
From the decision · page 5Under the doctrine of invited error, where a party sits on their rights and delays in conducting discovery, they cannot now claim a denial of their due process rights resulting from that delay. (Telles Transport, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Zuniga) (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1167-1168 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 1290] This conduct can include causing unnecessary delay by 5
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.