What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on September 24, 2025, challenging the failure to find non-industrial apportionment of disability.
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 WCJ and WCAB found that the AME's apportionment opinion lacked substantial medical evidence as it did not meet the required criteria of reasonable medical probability, adequate explanation, and was speculative and unclear.
From the decision · page 5Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of AME Dr. Heskiaoff on the issue of apportionment does not constitute substantial medical evidence. "[T]he mere fact that a report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report one upon which the WCAB may rely." (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Heskiaoff's apportionment opinion did not clearly explain or justify the non-industrial apportionment percentages for cervical and lumbar spine disabilities.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of clear explanation and reasoning led the WCJ and WCAB to reject the opinion as not substantial evidence, resulting in denial of apportionment to defendant.
From the decision · page 5Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of AME Dr. Heskiaoff on the issue of apportionment does not constitute substantial medical evidence. "[T]he mere fact that a report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report one upon which the WCAB may rely." (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620.)
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.
Dr. Heskiaoff opined apportionment percentages for lumbar spine, cervical spine, and right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome but did not provide clear explanations or substantial medical evidence to support his apportionment determinations.
The opinion was found not to constitute substantial medical evidence due to lack of clear explanation and reasoning as required by Escobedo.
From the decision · page 5Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of AME Dr. Heskiaoff on the issue of apportionment does not constitute substantial medical evidence. "[T]he mere fact that a report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report one upon which the WCAB may rely." (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4663; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604; Pullman Kellogg v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 26 Cal.3d 450
Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation and supported by substantial medical evidence meeting the criteria of reasonable medical probability, adequate examination, and clear reasoning.
The WCJ and WCAB applied these standards to evaluate the AME's apportionment opinion and found it lacking substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 5Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of AME Dr. Heskiaoff on the issue of apportionment does not constitute substantial medical evidence. "[T]he mere fact that a report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report one upon which the WCAB may rely." (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Heskiaoff's apportionment report lacked clear explanation and reasoning, failing to meet the substantial evidence standard under Escobedo.
From the decision · page 5Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of AME Dr. Heskiaoff on the issue of apportionment does not constitute substantial medical evidence. "[T]he mere fact that a report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report one upon which the WCAB may rely." (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620.)
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.