What the panel ordered
Findings and Award of November 30, 2021 rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings and decision by WCJ.
Petition for Reconsideration granted; prior Findings and Award rescinded; case returned to trial level for further proceedings and development of the record including supplemental medical and vocational reporting.
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 vocational evidence did not meet the standards for substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating and that further development of the record was necessary to properly adjudicate the issues of permanent disability and apportionment.
From the decision · page 5In Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30I] (Appeals Board en banc) (Nunes I), we held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment."