What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration of the Arbitrator's Findings and Award issued on February 2, 2026, denied by the WCAB panel decision dated May 11, 2026.
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 prevailedlumbar spine
The WCAB found that apportionment under section 4664 by the subtraction method is allowed despite the anti-attribution clause of section 4663(e) because the prior award overlaps the present award and both use the same AMA Guides rating method.
From the decision · page 3II. In addition to the reasons stated by the WCA, we note the following observations. The WCA, in significant part, based the opinion in this matter upon the recent panel decision of Canto Shadoan v. City of San Diego. (91 Cal.Comp.Cases 352, 2025 Cal.Work.Comp. P.D. LEXIX 435 (writ den.).). On April 29, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal denied review in Canto Shadoan with an unpublished opinion expressing agreement with the logic of the case. The WCA did not find apportionment based upon causation in this matter. Both of applicant's disabilities were rated using the exact same method contained in the AMA Guides, which was range of motion. Both AMEs in both cases found that applicant's impairment was 100% industrial in accordance with section 4663(e). Both disability awards are based upon a finding of 100% industrial causation.