What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's job duties involved standing all day, lifting and moving large glass panes and window frames, consistent with Occupational Group 370.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the WCJ's use of Occupational Group 370 for permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 4As explained in the WCJ's Report,
The employer produces finished windows of all sizes up to and including 10 ft. x
10 ft. Applicant stands all day and applies bead to window frames and installs the
glass to the frames using mallets. The finished frames are then physically moved
along the production line. So, he is lifting and moving large panes of glass as well
as finished frames....
Disability Evaluator opined Occupational Groups 320 and 321 were not applicable to applicant's job activities, supporting use of Group 370.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the WCJ's rating decision and rejection of defendant's argument for other groups.
From the decision · page 4specifically stated that Occupational Groups 320 and 321 were "not applicable" to applicant's job
activities, whereas "[t]here is a factual basis to use Group 370." (Minutes of Hearing/Summary of
Evidence (MOH/SOE), April 10, 2024, p. 2.) The Disability Evaluator's opinion was based upon
a review of Dr. Silbart's medical reports, as well as applicant's testimony.
AME Dr. Silbart's apportionment opinion lacked detailed explanation and reasoning required by law, failing to meet substantial evidence standards.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Supported the WCJ's rejection of apportionment despite AME's opinion.
From the decision · page 10time of evaluation; and how and why these changes were responsible for the percentage of PD
identified. (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 621.) Thus, Dr. Silbart's medical opinion
does not satisfy the standards set forth in Escobedo, and defendant did not carry its burden of proof
on apportionment.
The SAWW adjustment start date was incorrectly set as January 1, 2018, and was corrected to January 1 following the year the life pension commences.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Resulted in granting reconsideration limited to correcting the SAWW adjustment start date.
From the decision · page 10III. The WCJ applied the incorrect SAWW adjustment start date
In the Report, the WCJ states that the F&A erroneously identified January 1, 2018 as the