What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Defendant County of Los Angeles filed a timely, verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated September 29, 2023, which found applicant permanently and totally disabled from a March 11, 2018 injury.
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 AMEs found 71% PD based on medical evidence, and vocational expert Vega found applicant not feasible for vocational rehabilitation, supporting permanent total disability. Defendant's vocational expert Corso's opinions were rejected for misinterpreting work restrictions and ignoring vocational testing. Surveillance videos were found not reliable to rebut disability.
From the decision · page 3I INTRODUCTION Defendant County of Los Angeles has filed a timely, verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated September 29, 2023, which found that applicant, while employed on March 11, 2018 as a deputy sheriff, Occupational Group Number 490, at Los Angeles, California, by the County of Los Angeles, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, left knee, left hand and index finger, with cerebral concussion, posttraumatic headaches, sleep disturbance, compartment syndrome of the left lower limb, bruxism, myositis, and trauma to her teeth and jaws, resulting in permanent, total disability. Deputy Sheriff the applicant was 46 years old when a drunk driver being pursued by the California Highway Patrol drove into her patrol vehicle head-on at a speed of 110 miles per hour. The drunk driver was killed, but the applicant survived despite being so severely crushed inside her vehicle that it took emergency personnel more than three hours to remove her using the jaws of life. Ms.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
applicant sustained injury on March 11, 2018, resulting in multiple impairments and permanent total disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact establishes the basis for the permanent total disability claim and award.
From the decision · page 3I INTRODUCTION Defendant County of Los Angeles has filed a timely, verified petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award dated September 29, 2023, which found that applicant, while employed on March 11, 2018 as a deputy sheriff, Occupational Group Number 490, at Los Angeles, California, by the County of Los Angeles, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her cervical spine, lumbar spine, left shoulder, left knee, left hand and index finger, with cerebral concussion, posttraumatic headaches, sleep disturbance, compartment syndrome of the left lower limb, bruxism, myositis, and trauma to her teeth and jaws, resulting in permanent, total disability. Deputy Sheriff the applicant was 46 years old when a drunk driver being pursued by the California Highway Patrol drove into her patrol vehicle head-on at a speed of 110 miles per hour. The drunk driver was killed, but the applicant survived despite being so severely crushed inside her vehicle that it took emergency personnel more than three hours to remove her using the jaws of life. Ms.
Medical experts found 71% permanent disability based on AMA Guides and Labor Code Section 4660.1.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical rating forms the foundation for the disability award.
From the decision · page 5The AME reports of Clive Segil, M.D. in orthopedics, Lawrence Richman, M.D. in neurology, and Burton Sobelman, D.D.S. in dentistry were converted into a combined permanent disability (PD) percentage by using Labor Code Section 4660.1 and the current rating schedule to adjust Whole Person Impairment (WPI) percentages from the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides) found by the AMEs for each body part into PD, and then combining all PD percentages on the rating schedule's Combined Values Chart (denoted by the letter "C" below) in the manner directed by the rating schedule, as shown in the following rating strings:
Vocational expert Enrique Vega found applicant not feasible for vocational rehabilitation due to serious pain and physical limitations, supported by vocational testing and observations.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This vocational opinion rebutted the scheduled rating and supported permanent total disability.
Defendant's vocational expert Corso misinterpreted medical work restrictions and disregarded vocational testing, leading to less persuasive opinions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The rejection of Corso's opinions strengthened the finding of permanent total disability.
Surveillance videos do not reliably show ability to work consistently or meet employment demands, as explained by vocational expert Vega.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This undermined defendant's argument that videos rebut permanent total disability.
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.
Provided work restrictions including limitation to working only two hours per day with rest periods, no lifting over five pounds, no repetitive typing or fine manipulation, and no turning head or neck.
Work restrictions were given great weight and were correctly followed by vocational expert Vega, but misinterpreted by defendant's vocational expert Corso.
From the decision · page 3the applicant was released after spending five days in the hospital, but she is now medically retired and has not returned to any kind of work since her injury. Defendants' petition contends generally that the undersigned acted without or in excess of its powers in finding and awarding permanent, total disability, that the evidence does not justify the findings of fact, and that the findings of fact do not support the decision. The petition also contends that the undersigned's decision will result in significant prejudice and irreparable harm to defendant, although these last two assertions seem misplaced as they are criteria for removal of interlocutory and downstairs, repetitive bending, stooping, and lifting," "no turning her head and neck from side to side, no flexing and extending the neck," "no lifting above the head," "no repeated bending, lifting, twisting, or lifting more than five pounds," and "avoiding completely" any "repetitive typing, keyboard activities for a computer" and "fine manipulation avoidance" (AME Report of Dr. Segil dated March 31, 2021, Court's X3, page 1, paragraph 3, through page 2, paragraph 3). The petition further contends that the fact that Deputy the applicant has written short stories and poetry means that she is amenable to vocational rehabilitation and could produce income.
Contributed to combined permanent disability rating.
His medical opinions were part of the combined PD rating and given great weight.
From the decision · page 5The AME reports of Clive Segil, M.D. in orthopedics, Lawrence Richman, M.D. in neurology, and Burton Sobelman, D.D.S. in dentistry were converted into a combined permanent disability (PD) percentage by using Labor Code Section 4660.1 and the current rating schedule to adjust Whole Person Impairment (WPI) percentages from the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides) found by the AMEs for each body part into PD, and then combining all PD percentages on the rating schedule's Combined Values Chart (denoted by the letter "C" below) in the manner directed by the rating schedule, as shown in the following rating strings:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. W.C.A.B. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 607
Permanent total disability must be determined using the framework of Labor Code Section 4660.1 and the AMA Guides, with vocational evidence to rebut the rating.
The court's framework was applied to find 71% PD based on medical evidence and to consider vocational expert opinions for permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 6In the case of Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. W.C.A.B. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 607, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224, 83 Cal. Comp. Cases 1680, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a finding of permanent, total disability cannot be found solely "in accordance with the fact" under California Labor Code Section 4662(6) without following the more specific and detailed framework of Labor Code Section 4660 (which applies to injuries before January 1, 2013; for injuries after that date, such as the instant case, the applicable section would be 4660.1). This approach is necessary in order to give effect to the legislature's intent to provide a system that is objective and uniform in application, with consistency, uniformity, and objectivity in its results. At the same time, the court in Fitzpatrick acknowledged that it is possible to rebut a rating that is calculated using the AMA Guides and the current rating schedule in accordance with Labor Code Section 4660 (or 4660.1).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Surveillance videos showing applicant driving, shopping, moving bags and boxes, and riding as a passenger on a motorcycle
From the decision · page 4Finally, the petition asserts that surveillance videos showing Deputy the applicant driving a truck, shopping, moving bags and boxes, and riding as a passenger on a motorcycle "are substantial evidence" and "are significant to rebut the finding of the 100% PD" (Petition for Reconsideration dated October 25, 2023, page 8, numbered lines 25-27).
Vocational expert Enrique Vega's testing and observations showing applicant's serious pain, physical limitations, and inability to maintain work pace or meet deadlines
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.