Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313
Permanent disability is the irreversible residual of an injury and compensates for physical loss and loss of future earning capacity.
Applied to assess permanent disability in this case.
From the decision · page 4The workers' compensation system includes compensation for permanent disability.
(Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1320.) "'[P]ermanent disability
is understood as `the irreversible residual of an injury.'" (Id. at p. 1320, quoting Kopping v.
Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111.) "Thus, permanent disability
payments are intended to compensate workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of
their future earning capacity." (Brodie, supra, at p. 1320, citing Lab. Code, § 4660(a).)
Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613
A physician must use AMA Guides to determine whole person impairments and provide reasoning; a single physician's opinion may establish WPI if substantial evidence.
Applied to evaluate medical-legal reports and WPI ratings.
From the decision · page 4When assessing an injured employee's permanent disability, the first step is a
comprehensive medical-legal report prepared by a treating or evaluating physician. (Blackledge v.
Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613, 619.) The physician uses the AMA Guides to
determine the WPIs for the applicant's medical conditions. (Id. at pp. 619-620.) The physician
must set forth their reasoning behind the WPI. (Id. at p. 621.) "The expert opinion of a single
physician may establish an injured employee's WPI, provided that the opinion constitutes
substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 620, citing Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d
372, 378§ 379 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525, 529-539].) Permanent disability payments are then
calculated by converting that degree of permanent disability into an award based on a table.
(Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018)
27 Cal.App.5th 607, 611 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680], citing Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1270 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].)
Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084
Scheduled permanent disability ratings may be rebutted by showing factual errors or by using other AMA Guides methods that more accurately reflect impairment.
Applied to consider Dr. Mandell's Guzman rebuttal analysis.
From the decision · page 5Bd. en banc) (Almaraz II), we held that a "scheduled permanent disability rating may be rebutted
by successfully challenging the component element of that rating relating to the employee's WPI
under the AMA Guides....by establishing that another chapter, table, or method within the four
corners of the Guides most accurately reflects the injured employee's impairment." (Id. at pp.
1095-1096.) In Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010)
187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837], the Court of Appeal affirmed our decision in
Almaraz II.