What the panel ordered
Decision of June 17, 2022 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and decision.
Petition for reconsideration granted; prior WCJ decision rescinded and matter remanded for further proceedings and decision.
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 Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficiently developed to make final decisions on complex issues, and thus vacated the prior decision and remanded for further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3The following information shall be contained in the introduction of the report: Defendant1 has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration (Petition) to this judge's decision on July 1, 2022. That decision, which was served on June 17, 2022, issued a 76% award without Benson2 apportionment amongst a specific injury and a cumulative injury. Defendant has several complaints about the decision, and urges separate awards with much lower permanent disability. Applicant3 has filed a timely and verified answer (Answer) to the Petition. Applicant generally supports the decision, although she also urges that the award should be increased due to a mistaken nonindustrial apportionment for her psyche injury. (Defendant urges that there should be no award on permanent disability at all for psyche.) As both parties have urged some action by the appeals board, this judge has submitted this report and cases for the board's review. However, this judge recommends that the board vacate the findings and award, and remand this matter for further development of the record. As will be summarized, both parties are arguing about complex issues over which there is no substantial medical evidence to make final decisions.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Medical evidence was insufficiently developed to make final decisions on complex issues including cumulative trauma periods and apportionment.
Favours neutral
Led the Appeals Board to vacate the prior decision and remand for further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3The following information shall be contained in the introduction of the report: Defendant1 has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration (Petition) to this judge's decision on July 1, 2022. That decision, which was served on June 17, 2022, issued a 76% award without Benson2 apportionment amongst a specific injury and a cumulative injury. Defendant has several complaints about the decision, and urges separate awards with much lower permanent disability. Applicant3 has filed a timely and verified answer (Answer) to the Petition. Applicant generally supports the decision, although she also urges that the award should be increased due to a mistaken nonindustrial apportionment for her psyche injury. (Defendant urges that there should be no award on permanent disability at all for psyche.) As both parties have urged some action by the appeals board, this judge has submitted this report and cases for the board's review. However, this judge recommends that the board vacate the findings and award, and remand this matter for further development of the record. As will be summarized, both parties are arguing about complex issues over which there is no substantial medical evidence to make final decisions.
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.
Found 14% WPI for psyche injury with 10% nonindustrial apportionment; apportioned 65% industrial causation to physical injuries and 25% to personnel actions.
From the decision · page 78. Psyche Dr. Myron Nathan served as the parties' psyche AME. He found that applicant sustained 14% WPI.20 Regarding apportionment, Dr. Nathan found 10% apportionment to nonindustrial factors of disability.21 Regarding the industrial factors of causation, Dr. Nathan specified: "[Of industrial causation, 65% is due to] permanent physical industrial injury/injuries and disability which are inextricably intertwined and deferred to the trier of fact.... [to] only her neurologic and orthopedic disability. 25% of the applicant's permanent disability has been caused as a result of the lack of personnel actions and personnel actions."22 D. Summary of Evidence re. Date of Injury Cumulative Trauma Period The parties disputed the correct cumulative trauma (CT) period, which would in part determine the appropriateness of providing permanent disability indemnity due to applicant's psyche injury.
Found whole person impairment (WPI) percentages for lumbar spine, cervical spine, right and left upper extremities; found disability entirely industrial with no apportionment among injury dates.
From the decision · page 5Dr. Peter Newton served as the parties' orthopedic agreed medical examiner (AME),
Found WPI for gastrointestinal and respiratory issues with varying apportionment; could not apportion among injury dates.
From the decision · page 5Dr. Arthur Lipper served as the parties' internal AME. Regarding applicant's
Found 4% WPI to face and dental issues without nonindustrial apportionment; could not apportion among injury dates.
From the decision · page 6Dr. Jeffrey Miller served as the parties' dental AME. He found that applicant sustained 4%
Found cognitive impairment and headache WPI with some nonindustrial apportionment; causation tied to specific injury in July 2015.
From the decision · page 6Dr. Lawrence Richman served as the parties' neurological AME. Regarding cognitive
Found no industrial injury on a rheumatological basis.
From the decision · page 6Dr. Rodney Bluestone served as the parties' rheumatological AME. He concluded that applicant had no industrial injury on a rheumatological basis.17 Dr. Seymour Levine opined differently, finding permanent disability due to sleep and arousal disorder18.
Found no industrial causation for eye injury in 2010 report.
From the decision · page 6Dr. Marvin Teitelbaum served as the parties' ophthalmological qualified medical examiner (QME). From a report in 2010, it appears the doctor found no industrial causation.19
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 4662
Governs permanent disability indemnity and apportionment issues.
From the decision · page 3The following information shall be contained in the introduction of the report: Defendant1 has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration (Petition) to this judge's decision on July 1, 2022. That decision, which was served on June 17, 2022, issued a 76% award without Benson2 apportionment amongst a specific injury and a cumulative injury. Defendant has several complaints about the decision, and urges separate awards with much lower permanent disability. Applicant3 has filed a timely and verified answer (Answer) to the Petition. Applicant generally supports the decision, although she also urges that the award should be increased due to a mistaken nonindustrial apportionment for her psyche injury. (Defendant urges that there should be no award on permanent disability at all for psyche.) As both parties have urged some action by the appeals board, this judge has submitted this report and cases for the board's review. However, this judge recommends that the board vacate the findings and award, and remand this matter for further development of the record. As will be summarized, both parties are arguing about complex issues over which there is no substantial medical evidence to make final decisions.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 5412
Governs date of injury and cumulative trauma period determinations.
From the decision · page 3The following information shall be contained in the introduction of the report: Defendant1 has filed a timely and verified petition for reconsideration (Petition) to this judge's decision on July 1, 2022. That decision, which was served on June 17, 2022, issued a 76% award without Benson2 apportionment amongst a specific injury and a cumulative injury. Defendant has several complaints about the decision, and urges separate awards with much lower permanent disability. Applicant3 has filed a timely and verified answer (Answer) to the Petition. Applicant generally supports the decision, although she also urges that the award should be increased due to a mistaken nonindustrial apportionment for her psyche injury. (Defendant urges that there should be no award on permanent disability at all for psyche.) As both parties have urged some action by the appeals board, this judge has submitted this report and cases for the board's review. However, this judge recommends that the board vacate the findings and award, and remand this matter for further development of the record. As will be summarized, both parties are arguing about complex issues over which there is no substantial medical evidence to make final decisions.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credibility with doctors was not disputed.
From the decision · page 4As confirmed by applicant's brief testimony at trial, her credibility with the doctors is not
Parties' post-trial briefing was helpful in determining rating issues and points of agreement and disagreement.
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.