Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code Section 3202
Supports equitable and accurate reflection of impairment rating
From the decision · page 5Defendants assert that the medical reports are erroneous. Respectfully they are not.
Furthermore, Defendants themselves offered the reports. The record is not incomplete nor is there
a need to develop the record. The issue really is, should the impairment(s) be added or combined.
Based upon Labor Code Section 3202, the medical reports, the Kite case, and the AMA Guides
which do not require a strict interpretation, but rather what is equitable and an accurate reflection
of impairment, respectfully, the Findings and Award is supported by the evidence, the evidence
does justify the Findings and the Judge did not act in excess of her powers.
California Court of Appeal
Athens Administrators v. WCAB (Kite) 2013 78 CCC 213
Supports adding impairments for bilateral injuries due to synergistic effect
From the decision · page 5Kite, in fact, discussed as in this case, utilizing a combining method and in Kite the doctor
found that as there is a synergistic effect of an injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body
parts from different regions of the body that the addition method would most accurately reflect the
Applicant's impairment. The Guides are to provide for an accurate reflection of impairment, and
the Applicant's impairment would be falsely lowered if the combined values chart were utilized
given the bilateral injury.
AMA Guides
Guides do not require combining impairments; allow adding when appropriate
From the decision · page 4Defendants contend that the Applicant did not have an increase in his complaints, that there
was no change in his activities of daily living and that the doctor did not discuss the same. In part,
to support their contention, Defendants reference the doctor's deposition conducted in February of
2017. This deposition was not offered into evidence. In any event, the doctor does discuss activities
of daily living, and this is not the only means that may be taken into consideration in determining
permanent impairment consistent with the provisions of the AMA Guides and the legislative intent
in how to determine the proper level of impairment. It is only one of the means that may be utilized
in determining what is an accurate depiction of one's actual level of impairment. As discussed in
Kite the Guides do not require that impairments must be combined, and allow that impairment
may be added.
California Court of Appeal
Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 808
Trial judge has discretion to consider AMA Guides and MDT but is not required to strictly follow them
From the decision · page 5The Guides as referenced in Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation
on Petition for Reconsideration in Kite notes that the there is no scientific formula that has been
established to combine multiple impairment and that various options are utilized and that nowhere
in the rating schedule of the AMA Guides is it required that multiple disabilities must be combined.
Different methods may be utilized and alternative methods have been supported by cases such as
Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Guzman) (2010) 187
Cal. App, [4th 808][75 CCC 837] and County of Los Angeles v. WCAB (Le Cornu) (2-9) 74 CCC
645 (writ denied) both cases held that the trial judge has discretion to take into consideration the
Guides and the MDT, but that they are guides and the judge is not required to strictly follow the
guides. The intent is to determine what will most accurately determine level of impairment.
California Court of Appeal
County of Los Angeles v. WCAB (Le Cornu) (2009) 74 CCC 645
Supports trial judge discretion in impairment rating methods
From the decision · page 5The Guides as referenced in Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation
on Petition for Reconsideration in Kite notes that the there is no scientific formula that has been
established to combine multiple impairment and that various options are utilized and that nowhere
in the rating schedule of the AMA Guides is it required that multiple disabilities must be combined.
Different methods may be utilized and alternative methods have been supported by cases such as
Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Guzman) (2010) 187
Cal. App, [4th 808][75 CCC 837] and County of Los Angeles v. WCAB (Le Cornu) (2-9) 74 CCC
645 (writ denied) both cases held that the trial judge has discretion to take into consideration the
Guides and the MDT, but that they are guides and the judge is not required to strictly follow the
guides. The intent is to determine what will most accurately determine level of impairment.