ADJ9647382 — California WCAB decision

ADJ9647382 · August 22, 2024

The WCJ's September 29, 2021 Findings of Fact and Award is rescinded, the August 11, 2021 Order Vacating Submission is amended to clarify the July 23, 2021 Findings and Award is rescinded, and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Marina del Rey

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration from the September 29, 2021 Findings of Fact and Award filed by the WCJ, seeking review of permanent disability rating and Combined Values Chart rebuttal issues.

Read the official decision →

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.

Permanent disability ratingRemandedbilateral wrists · right shoulder · lumbar spine · bilateral lower extremities · fibromyalgia

The WCJ's permanent disability rating of 65% was found to be unsupported due to lack of sufficient medical evidence to rebut the Combined Values Chart, and the vocational expert's opinion on CVC rebuttal was deemed irrelevant as non-medical. The matter was remanded for further development of the record including medical evidence on CVC rebuttal and clarification of work restrictions for vocational evaluation.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Award" (F&A) issued on September 29, 2021, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of fibromyalgia which caused 65% permanent partial disability.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 5313; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473

The WCJ must state reasons or grounds for the determination and base decisions on admitted evidence supported by substantial evidence, per Labor Code section 5313 and Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001).

The WCJ's decision must be supported by substantial evidence and clearly designate the evidence forming the basis of the decision.

From the decision · page 6Labor Code2 section 5313 requires a WCJ to state the "reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made." The WCJ's opinion on decision "enables the parties, and the Board if reconsideration is sought, to ascertain the basis for the decision, and makes the right of seeking reconsideration more meaningful." (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].) A decision "must be based on admitted evidence in the record" (Hamilton, supra, at p. 478), and must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As required by section 5313 and explained in Hamilton, "the WCJ is charged with the responsibility of referring to the evidence in the opinion on decision, and of clearly designating the evidence that forms the basis of the decision." (Hamilton, supra, at p. 475.)

Nunes I (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741

Vocational expert opinions are not medical evidence and cannot rebut the Combined Values Chart under the AMA Guides and PDRS.

The vocational expert's opinion on CVC rebuttal was disregarded as irrelevant to medical issues.

ADJ9647382 · August 22, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page