ADJ9097135 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

October 9, 2025 Joint Findings, Award and Order affirmed in part and amended in part; permanent total disability awarded retroactive to October 20, 2011; penalties deferred; attorney fee set at 18%.

Petitions for Reconsideration filed by both defendant and applicant after the Joint Findings, Award and Order issued on October 9, 2025; WCJ Report recommended earnings reduction and penalty deferral; Appeals Board granted both Petitions for Reconsideration and amended the FA&O.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 4, 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.

Permanent total disabilityApplicant prevailedneck · back · spine · psyche · low back

Applicant is permanently and totally disabled with no apportionment; medical and vocational evidence supports no future earning capacity and non-amenability to vocational rehabilitation.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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.

otherRelied upon · psychology

Applicant's primary psychological disturbance caused by industrial and slight nonindustrial factors; applicant is permanently totally disabled from working at the prison; apportionment to non-industrial role not supported.

The doctor does not explain apportionment in light of positive aspects of the non-industrial role, making the apportionment opinion not substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 25For psychiatric impairment, however, Dr. Pfeiffer finds 10% apportionment to applicant's non-industrial role as primary caretaker of four grandchildren. This apportionment opinion, however, fails to set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions and therefore defendants fail in meeting their burden to establish psychiatric apportionment. This is because the doctor does not explain apportionment in light of his finding the "responsibility also contributes to her sense of meaning derived from serving the children as well as benefitting to from the love that emanates from the role of parent that she is now integrally involved in their lives." (Exhibit 9.) Dr. Pfieffer's apportionment determination is not substantial. (Escobedo, supra, at p. 607.)

AMERelied upon · orthopedics

Applicant has persistent low back pain, chronic pain syndrome, unable to perform employment activities, and is incapable of returning to work without surgical intervention.

The WCJ relied on Dr. Yoo's findings regarding applicant's inability to work due to chronic pain.

From the decision · page 530.) Dr. Yoo then stated that: It appears the applicant has persistent low back pain which can aslo [sic] be called a chronic pain syndrome. It appears she has tried to return to work with this condition and failed in continuing to work due to her pain symptoms. For this reason, I agree with Dr. Cleary insofar as her chronic back pain is now advanced to a stage where the patient is unable to perform the activities required of her employment. Without surgical intervention, my professional and medical opinion is that the applicant is, and will be, incapable of returning to work, even with modifications.

PTPRelied upon · orthopedics

Applicant was permanent and stationary for low back injuries as of August 13, 2014.

From the decision · page 4On February 24, 2014, treating physician John Cleary, M.D., issued a report following his examination of applicant for the July 2008 and October 30, 2009 low back injuries. (Exhibit D, John Cleary, M.D., February 24, 2014.) On August 13, 2014, Dr. Cleary issued a report concluding that applicant was permanent and stationary for her low back in the July 2008 and October 30, 2009 injuries. (Exhibit B, John Cleary, M.D., August 13, 2014.)

AMERelied upon · psychiatry

Applicant is permanently totally disabled from working at the prison.

From the decision · page 4Over ten years ago, in 2015, agreed medical evaluator (AME) in psychiatry, Rapheal Morris, M.D., issued a report of his evaluation of applicant for June 9, 2005 date of injury. (Exhibit F, AME Rapheal Morris, M.D., July 1, 2015.)

ADJ9097135 · January 12, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page