ADJ12792074 · April 27, 2026

The WCJ found 57% permanent disability after apportionment but did not find that applicant rebutted the PDRS with vocational evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed, particularly regarding vocational and medical evidence, and granted reconsideration for further development.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 23, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained 57% permanent disability, after apportionment, for injuries to his right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left hip, and psyche. The WCJ also found that the "violent act" exception applied under Labor Code section1 4660.1 and that applicant did not rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) with vocational evidence.

Applicant's vocational expert opined 100% permanent total disability due to work injury, supporting rebuttal of the PDRS rating.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This vocational evidence challenges the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not rebut the PDRS with vocational evidence, leading to reconsideration.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that vocational expert, Enrique Vega, opined that applicant has lost 100% of his earning capacity as a result of the work injury and is thus 100% permanently totally disabled on a vocational basis. Applicant also contends that due to his inability to compete in the open labor market or to be retrained to find and sustain suitable meaningful employment, he has rebutted the scheduled rating pursuant to section 4660.1(g) and the LeBoeuf/Ogilvie/Dahl line of cases, as well as the en banc decisions in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Nunes I) and Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Nunes II).

Supplemental psychology QME report by Dr. Freiha was cursory, lacked foundation, and was speculative, thus not substantial evidence for reliance.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The lack of substantial medical evidence on psychiatric injury rebuttal led to the grant of reconsideration and remand for further development.

From the decision · page 13Dr. Freiha's supplemental report does not contain information regarding what history was taken nor information regarding an examination. Dr. Freiha states that applicant is now determined to be permanent and stationary because applicant "has decided that he prefers to not prolong this case by seeking mental health treatment. I understand and support this decision." (Ex. MM, Freiha supplemental report dated October 22, 2024, p. 2.) Not only is this cursory, but it lacks foundation because it is based on an allegation by applicant's attorney and not on a medical evaluation of applicant and not on a review of the medical and vocational evidence, and it is not an opinion framed in terms of reasonable medical probability. As to causation, Dr. Freiha's opinions are speculative: "It appears clear that the injury in question was industrially based." and "It does not appear that there are any other causes to the injury." (Ex.

Diagnosed major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, pain disorder, and alcohol dependence in remission; assigned 20% whole person impairment and opined 85% of psychiatric disability is industrial.

From the decision · page 3On July 24, 2025, treating psychologist Dr. Green examined applicant, took applicant's history, and reviewed medical records from treating physician Dr. Chow. (Ex. 2, Green PTP report dated July 24, 2025, pp. 2-5.) Dr. Green also conducted diagnostic testing, and diagnosed applicant with a major depressive disorder, a generalized anxiety disorder, a pain disorder, and alcohol dependance, in remission. Under his previous diagnoses, PTSD is also listed. (Id. at pp. 5-7.) Dr. Green assigned a GAF score of 57, according to DSM-IV, and opined that applicant had a whole

Did not diagnose psychological conditions; stated mental health complaints stem from chronic pain and stress; apportioned 80% to work injury but report was cursory and not substantial evidence.

Report lacked foundation, was cursory, speculative, and not based on medical evaluation or review of evidence; not substantial evidence for reliance.

From the decision · page 4On October 22, 2024, in her supplemental psychology QME report (Ex. MM), Dr. Freiha provides a cursory discussion and history and did not diagnose any psychological conditions. She merely stated that applicant's mental health complaints stem from "his chronic pain condition, his reduced capacity for physical exertion and activity, financial stress, and the stress of the ongoing worker compensation case." (Ex. MM, Freiha supplemental report dated October 22, 2024, p. 2.) Dr. Freiha makes no reference to any medical records or to any vocational reports.

Found 30% whole person impairment for physical injuries, apportioned 100% to industrial injury; opinions unchanged after review of additional scans and sub-rosa video (not admitted).

From the decision · page 5Using the Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the PDRS, Dr. Emad opined that applicant has 15% WPI of the right upper extremity, 16% WPI due to his left femur, and 2% WPI due to a scar (as agreed to by the parties), which, when combined, result in total of 30% WPI. (Ex. BB, pp. 50-51.) Dr. Emad apportioned 100% to applicant's industrial injury. (Id. pp. 51-52.) After review of additional scans and a sub-rosa video of applicant, Dr. Emad's WPI opinions did not change. (Ex. AA, Emad supplemental report dated May 30, 2023, pp. 5-6.) We note that the video surveillance was not admitted into evidence.

Labor Code section 4660.1; Nunes I and II en banc decisions; LeBoeuf/Ogilvie/Dahl line of cases

Permanent disability is determined using the PDRS, which is presumptively correct but may be rebutted by vocational evidence showing diminished future earning capacity greater than reflected in the PDRS.

Vocational evidence must address apportionment and cannot substitute impermissible vocational apportionment for medical apportionment.

From the decision · page 14(a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs as between the body parts rated; or (b) there is overlap, but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Vigil, supra, 89 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 694.) In the en banc decision in Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, we held that 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." However, we further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability. While the PDRS is presumptively correct (see Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 826 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]), "a rating obtained pursuant to the PDRS may be rebutted by showing an applicant's diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the PDRS." (Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 749.) Among the methods described for challenging a rating obtained under the PDRS was establishing that "the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee's diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee's scheduled rating." (Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

Vocational expert Enrique Vega opined applicant has lost 100% earning capacity due to work injury, supporting 100% permanent total disability on vocational basis.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that vocational expert, Enrique Vega, opined that applicant has lost 100% of his earning capacity as a result of the work injury and is thus 100% permanently totally disabled on a vocational basis. Applicant also contends that due to his inability to compete in the open labor market or to be retrained to find and sustain suitable meaningful employment, he has rebutted the scheduled rating pursuant to section 4660.1(g) and the LeBoeuf/Ogilvie/Dahl line of cases, as well as the en banc decisions in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Nunes I) and Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894 (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Nunes II).

Supplemental psychology QME report by Dr. Freiha was cursory, lacked foundation, and was speculative, not substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 13Dr. Freiha's supplemental report does not contain information regarding what history was taken nor information regarding an examination. Dr. Freiha states that applicant is now determined to be permanent and stationary because applicant "has decided that he prefers to not prolong this case by seeking mental health treatment. I understand and support this decision." (Ex. MM, Freiha supplemental report dated October 22, 2024, p. 2.) Not only is this cursory, but it lacks foundation because it is based on an allegation by applicant's attorney and not on a medical evaluation of applicant and not on a review of the medical and vocational evidence, and it is not an opinion framed in terms of reasonable medical probability. As to causation, Dr. Freiha's opinions are speculative: "It appears clear that the injury in question was industrially based." and "It does not appear that there are any other causes to the injury." (Ex.