What the panel ordered
Findings, Award and Order rescinded and substituted; issue of whether subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets 35% permanent disability threshold deferred; all other issues deferred; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration granted; original Findings, Award and Order rescinded and substituted; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
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 issue of whether the subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under section 4751 is deferred for further medical record development and trial proceedings.
From the decision · page 104. The issue of whether applicant's subsequent cumulative trauma injury meets the 35 percent permanent disability threshold under Labor Code section 4751 is deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained injury to bilateral upper extremities and sleep during employment from November 4, 2006 through September 29, 2015.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Establishes the basis for the subsequent cumulative trauma injury claim relevant to the permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 101. the applicant, born ______, while employed during the period of November 4, 2006 through September 29, 2015, as a student affairs associate dean at Santa Ana, California, by the Art Institute of California, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to bilateral upper extremities and sleep.
Medical opinion supports a 7% whole person impairment rating for sleep disorder and a combined 66% whole person impairment rating using the combined values chart.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Provides substantial evidence relevant to the permanent disability rating and apportionment.
From the decision · page 3Secondary to her residual symptoms, the patient has difficulty sleeping, which adversely affects her daytime alertness. She has also scored high on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, with a total score of 15. Additionally, she has undergone a sleep study which did reveal significant findings. It is my opinion that she fits the criteria for a Class 1 sleep and arousal disorder, with a 7% whole person impairment rating, as outlined in Chapter 13, page 317, Table 13:4.
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.
Opined that the patient has a 7% whole person impairment rating for sleep and arousal disorder and a combined whole person impairment rating of 66% using the combined values chart; apportioned 20% of current disability to the initial industrial injury and 80% to subsequent cumulative trauma.
Provides detailed impairment ratings and apportionment relevant to the permanent disability rating issue.
From the decision · page 3Secondary to her residual symptoms, the patient has difficulty sleeping, which adversely affects her daytime alertness. She has also scored high on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, with a total score of 15. Additionally, she has undergone a sleep study which did reveal significant findings. It is my opinion that she fits the criteria for a Class 1 sleep and arousal disorder, with a 7% whole person impairment rating, as outlined in Chapter 13, page 317, Table 13:4.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4751
Labor Code section 4751
Defines the criteria for subsequent injury permanent disability threshold and benefits.
From the decision · page 5If an employee who is permanently partially disabled receives a subsequent compensable injury resulting in additional permanent partial disability so that the degree of disability caused by the combination of both disabilities is greater than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone, and the combined effect of the last injury and the previous disability
Todd v. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 576, 581-582 (Appeals Board en banc)
Todd v. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 576, 581-582 (Appeals Board en banc)
Sets forth elements to recover subsequent injuries fund benefits under Labor Code section 4751.
From the decision · page 6582 [2020 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 35] (Appeals Board en banc), we stated that an employee must
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical opinion of Dr. Michael Einbund supporting impairment ratings and apportionment
From the decision · page 3Secondary to her residual symptoms, the patient has difficulty sleeping, which adversely affects her daytime alertness. She has also scored high on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, with a total score of 15. Additionally, she has undergone a sleep study which did reveal significant findings. It is my opinion that she fits the criteria for a Class 1 sleep and arousal disorder, with a 7% whole person impairment rating, as outlined in Chapter 13, page 317, Table 13:4.
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.