What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained industrial injury to heart and psyche during employment as correctional officer from 2/2/2007 to 9/24/2011.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the basis for the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.2 and entitlement to benefits.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's
(WCJ) Findings and Award of October 15, 2021 wherein it was found that, while employed as a
correctional officer during a cumulative period from February 2, 2007 through September 24,
2011, applicant sustained industrial injury to his heart and psyche causing permanent disability of
94% and the need for further medical treatment. In finding permanent disability of 94%, it was
found that applicant had 47% coronary heart disease disability which was not apportioned, 72%
hypertensive cardiovascular disease, which was not apportioned, and 18% psychiatric disability
after apportionment.
Medical evidence showed hypertension caused left ventricular hypertrophy, constituting heart trouble under section 3212.2 presumption.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding that the heart condition was industrially caused and not subject to apportionment under section 4663(e).
From the decision · page 2Applicant reported that he had hypertension preceding his employment as a correctional
officer, although it was controlled by medication when he was hired. During his employment as
a correctional officer, he was seen multiple times for hypertension, and was briefly hospitalized
twice for chest pain. (August 31, 2012 report of Dr. Levister at pp. 3-5.) Applicant was initially
evaluated by Dr. Levister on August 31, 2012. Dr. Levister had an echocardiogram administered
to the applicant which revealed left ventricular hypertrophy. (August 31, 2012 report at pp. 17-
18.)
WCJ declined to apportion hypertensive cardiovascular disease disability based on section 3212.2 presumption and section 4663(e) exemption.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This legal interpretation controlled the apportionment issue in favor of the applicant.
From the decision · page 5expressly listed in Labor Code section 4663(e) as an injury or illness exempt from Labor Code
section 4663 apportionment. Thus, to the extent that a condition gives rise to a Labor Code section
3212.2 presumption and that presumption is unrebutted, the condition is not subject to Labor Code
section 4663 apportionment.