What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on April 18, 2025, which found 64% permanent disability and no apportionment. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition as untimely or on the merits. The Appeals Board considered the petition and denied reconsideration on July 28, 2025.
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.
ApportionmentDefendant prevailedneck · back · right shoulder · right wrist · right knee · headaches
Defendant failed to prove prior award of disability overlapping with current award and failed to provide medical evidence of overlap, thus failing burden of proof on apportionment.
From the decision · page 5III. Defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (§ 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620-621 (Appeals Board en banc).) To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Id. at 621.) Section 4664 allows apportionment to prior awards of disability. (§ 4664.) To prove apportionment under section 4664, defendant must first prove that a prior award of disability exists. (Pasquotto v. Hayward Lumber (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 223 [Appeals Board en banc opinion]; see also, Sanchez, supra; see also, Strong v. City and County of San Francisco (2005)