Permanent disability rating

What the Appeals Board did with this

Newest released decisions that turned on this issue. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF. Litigated tail — not a win rate, not a settlement value.

• ADJ10656647 · 2026-09-14 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the Joint Findings of Fact, Awards, and Order issued on November 23, 2022 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor: JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all relevant times herein, applicant, born _______, was employed as a groundskeeper (Occupational Group 491) in Colma, California, by defendant HILLS OF ETERNITY/HOME OF PEACE MANAGEMENT GROUP. 2. The defendant employer was insured against compensation liability by defendant AMERICAN FAMILY HOME INSURANCE COMPANY during the calendar year 2014 and by defendant INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST during the calendar year 2015. 3. At all relevant times herein, applicant’s pre-injury earnings were sufficient to entitle him to the maximum statutory permanent partial indemnity weekly rate. 4. In WCAB Case No. ADJ10656667, on April 12, 2015, applicant sustained injury, arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment identified in Finding of Fact No. 1, to his back. 5. In WCAB Case No.

  The Appeals Board found 46% permanent partial disability with no apportionment to other industrial or non-industrial causes, based on the evidence and findings of fact.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ6958667 · 2026-09-11 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8B. Defendant contends Applicant is not entitled to 51 % PD for sleep because Dr. Bertoldi did not provide an Almaraz/Guzman analysis; however, Dr. Bertoldi found Applicant's sleep impairment was caused by a pituitary dysfunction. Thus, the 45% WPI utilizing Chapter 10 of the AMA Guides was Dr. Bertoldi's straight rating, and Almaraz/Guzman does not apply. Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code Section 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 274, 281 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, Mcdonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company, et. al., (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312, 317 935 Cal. Comp. Cases 16].); LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 627,635 [35 Cal. Comp. Cases 16].). In Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 CCC 613, the WCAB held that it is the physician's role to determine the injured worker's WPI under the AMA Guides and to support that

  The 51% PD rating for sleep impairment was upheld because it was a straight AMA Guides rating based on hypothalamic-pituitary axis disorder, not requiring Almaraz/Guzman analysis.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13514341 · 2026-09-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.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 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).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18016076 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence and the Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is “based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess.” (Place v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378. In its petition, defendant contends, “Dr. Brewer’s cervical spine impairment rating does not satisfy the AMA Guides 5th Edition requirements for DRE Category III.” DRE Cervical Category III criteria includes: “significant signs of radiculopathy…” (Table 15-5.) Here, QME Dr. Fields Brewer opined applicant’s cervical spine WPI should be placed in DRE III because: - Applicant expresses neck pain radiating to the let upper extremity and numbness/tingling - MRI, multiple-level disc bulging - Diagnosis: cervical radiculopathy (Joint Exhibit 1, p. 12.) That analysis is unrebutted. I adopted the QME’s assigned cervical spine WPI of 17%. Defendant further contends, “Dr. Brewer’s left shoulder impairment rating is methodologically unsupported and speculative” because a left shoulder MRI had not been performed; Dr. Fields Brewer had conducted range of motion studies, however. Utilizing the ROM results, medical records review, examinations of the applicant, and utilization of AMA Guides, Dr. Fields Brewer determined that applicant’s WPI was 4%.

  The QME Dr. Fields Brewer's WPI ratings for cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder, supported by medical examination and AMA Guides criteria, constitute substantial evidence for a 53% permanent disability rating.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ8215781 · 2026-08-25 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on March 25, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed during the period September 12, 2008 to December 7, 2010, as a housekeeper, sustained an industrial injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her neck, right shoulder, low back, sleep, both wrists, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, stomach, fibromyalgia and psyche, resulting in 100% permanent disability. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding 100% permanent disability, arguing that the evidence does not support a total loss of future earning capacity. Specifically, defendant asserts that no medical reporting or vocational expert testimony establishes that applicant has sustained such a loss.

  The WCAB found substantial medical evidence supporting the 100% permanent disability rating, correcting the occupational group number to reflect dual occupations (housekeeper and child monitor) and applying the appropriate combined and added impairment ratings under Vigil.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11139524 · 2026-07-27 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the April 20, 2026 Findings of Fact and Award (F&A), wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in pertinent part, that while employed by defendant from August 1, 2016 through August 1, 2017 as an inmate laborer, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his lower back, neck, knees, hips, ankles, wrists, upper gastrointestinal system, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and right elbow; that good cause has been shown to prove applicant has incurred new and further disability; that applicant’s impairments to his lower extremities and low back should be added under Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal. Comp.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11167605 · 2026-07-20 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14In this case I found Dr. Feinberg’s reporting to be substantial medical evidence on impairments and adopted his finding of 60 percent WPI for the right upper extremity, and 20 percent WPI for the left upper extremity. Dr. Feinberg’s opinion was based on Table 13-22 on page 343 of the AMA Guides[.]… In this case I find that there was sufficient support in the reporting of Dr. Feinberg to justify his opinions on WPI. The applicant has consistently reported that she cannot use her dominant right upper extremity for self-care or daily activities. Therefore, she meets the stated criteria of a Class 4 impairment for the right upper extremity, which was what Dr. Feinberg assigned. The applicant also has consistently reported that she has difficulty with self-care activities with her non-dominant left upper extremity, thus meeting the criteria for a Class 3 impairment of the left upper extremity per Table 13-22. Dr. Feinberg’s physical examination of the applicant supported the applicant’s complaints in his observation of her bilateral upper extremities. He found reduced range of motions, positive tests, and obvious deformity.

  The WCJ found substantial medical evidence supporting the permanent disability rating based on the QME Dr. Feinberg's reports, including the justification for adding impairments rather than combining them, consistent with the en banc Vigil decision. The defendant's challenges to the impairment ratings and vocational evidence were rejected due to lack of substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ8450336 · 2026-07-15 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1We previously granted reconsideration to allow us time to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. 1 Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings & Award (F&A) issued on June 14, 2022, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found in pertinent part that, in ADJ8450336, applicant sustained an industrial injury on July 20, 2010, while employed as a registered nurse, to her low back, both shoulders, both wrists, gastrointestinal system in the form of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and a sleep disorder, which resulted in 40% permanent disability, commencing February 25, 2014. The WCJ further found in pertinent part that, in ADJ8720647, applicant sustained an industrial injury during the period from March 5, 2007 to January 11, 2013, to her neck, low back, left wrist, left hip, left ankle, and gastrointestinal system in the form of GERD, which resulted in 26% permanent disability, commencing November 12, 2014. In both cases, the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to her heart or cardiovascular system in the form of hypertensive cardiac disease, and that, while the presumption of compensability pursuant to Labor Code section 3212.2 2 applied, defendant successfully rebutted it.

  The Board found industrial injury to multiple body systems including heart and sleep disorder, and awarded permanent disability percentages of 43% and 100% in the two cases, with no apportionment to nonindustrial factors for certain injuries.

  Official decision · page 1 →