What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings of Fact, Award and Order of August 9, 2024 affirmed except amended to award 86 percent unapportioned permanent disability.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Second Amended Findings of Fact, Award and Order issued August 9, 2024, challenging temporary disability period and apportionment; WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation to deny, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold October 27, 2021, August 2, 2021.
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 apportionment opinion of Dr. Hutchinson was found not to constitute substantial evidence because it lacked detailed explanation and proper legal principles, leading to an unapportioned award.
From the decision · page 912. The apportionment opinion of Karen Hutchinson, Ph.D., M.P.H. does not constitute substantial evidence.
The record did not support additional periods of temporary disability beyond March 1, 2019, as no competent medical evidence was cited for later periods.
From the decision · page 5Applicant also contests the Award of temporary disability. Finding of Fact No. 13 provides for temporary disability from February 22, 2017 through March 1, 2019. Applicant's Petition avers Dr. Fine placed applicant on temporary disability from March, 2019, through February, 2022. (Petition, at p. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes, however, that the evidentiary record only documents temporary disability through the March 1, 2019 report of Frank Fine, D.C. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) We note that applicant's Petition offers no citation to the evidentiary record that establishes additional periods of temporary disability. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b) ["every petition and answer shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record"].) Following our independent review of the record, however, we do not identify any additional periods of temporary disability supported by competent medical evidence, and we do not disturb the WCJ's findings with respect to temporary disability.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No competent medical evidence supported temporary disability beyond March 1, 2019.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This lack of evidence led to denial of additional temporary disability period claimed by applicant.
From the decision · page 5Applicant also contests the Award of temporary disability. Finding of Fact No. 13 provides for temporary disability from February 22, 2017 through March 1, 2019. Applicant's Petition avers Dr. Fine placed applicant on temporary disability from March, 2019, through February, 2022. (Petition, at p. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes, however, that the evidentiary record only documents temporary disability through the March 1, 2019 report of Frank Fine, D.C. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) We note that applicant's Petition offers no citation to the evidentiary record that establishes additional periods of temporary disability. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b) ["every petition and answer shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record"].) Following our independent review of the record, however, we do not identify any additional periods of temporary disability supported by competent medical evidence, and we do not disturb the WCJ's findings with respect to temporary disability.
Dr. Hutchinson's apportionment opinion lacked detailed explanation and proper legal principles.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led to rejection of apportionment and an unapportioned permanent disability award to applicant.
From the decision · page 912. The apportionment opinion of Karen Hutchinson, Ph.D., M.P.H. does not constitute substantial evidence.
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.
Apportionment opinion on psychiatric permanent disability found invalid due to lack of detailed explanation and proper legal principles.
From the decision · page 912. The apportionment opinion of Karen Hutchinson, Ph.D., M.P.H. does not constitute substantial evidence.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399
Medical expense is not subject to apportionment and employer is responsible for medically necessary treatment.
The award includes provision for future medical care without apportionment, consistent with this precedent.
From the decision · page 4We agree with the WCJ, who states in her Report that the "medical award is to the entire injury, including the psyche." (Report, at p. 2.) We note that notwithstanding the apportionment of applicant's psychiatric permanent disability, the award of future medical care is not subject to apportionment. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647] ["There can be no doubt that medical expense is not apportionable."].)
Lab. Code, 4663
Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation and include detailed reasoning in medical reports.
The apportionment opinion of Dr. Hutchinson was evaluated against these requirements and found lacking, leading to rejection of apportionment.
From the decision · page 6Here, following our independent review of the record we are not persuaded that the apportionment to nonindustrial factors described by regular physician Dr. Hutchinson constitutes substantial medical evidence. Section 4663 sets out the requirements for the apportionment of permanent disability and provides, in relevant part, as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's Petition lacked citation to evidentiary record supporting temporary disability beyond March 1, 2019.
From the decision · page 5Applicant also contests the Award of temporary disability. Finding of Fact No. 13 provides for temporary disability from February 22, 2017 through March 1, 2019. Applicant's Petition avers Dr. Fine placed applicant on temporary disability from March, 2019, through February, 2022. (Petition, at p. 2.) The WCJ's Opinion on Decision notes, however, that the evidentiary record only documents temporary disability through the March 1, 2019 report of Frank Fine, D.C. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 5.) We note that applicant's Petition offers no citation to the evidentiary record that establishes additional periods of temporary disability. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10945(b) ["every petition and answer shall support its evidentiary statements by specific references to the record"].) Following our independent review of the record, however, we do not identify any additional periods of temporary disability supported by competent medical evidence, and we do not disturb the WCJ's findings with respect to temporary disability.
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.