What the panel ordered
The WCJ's September 29, 2021 Findings of Fact and Award is rescinded, the August 11, 2021 Order Vacating Submission is amended to clarify the July 23, 2021 Findings and Award is rescinded, and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.
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.
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'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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant failed to produce medical evidence addressing rebuttal of the Combined Values Chart; only vocational expert testimony was presented on this issue.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Without medical evidence, the WCJ correctly disregarded the vocational expert's opinion on CVC rebuttal, leading to the conclusion that the PDRS was not rebutted.
The deposition of the regular physician, Dr. Hirsch, was incomplete in the record, omitting most of his testimony which was necessary for the WCJ's findings.
Favours neutral
The incomplete medical testimony prevented a full evaluation of the medical evidence on CVC rebuttal, necessitating further development of the record.
From the decision · page 8On this issue, the deposition of the regular physician that is in evidence omits most of the
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. Hirsch testified regarding the applicant's inability to perform usual and customary occupation and deferred legal questions about the Combined Values Chart to the WCJ. Only a portion of his deposition was admitted into evidence.
His testimony was considered but found incomplete and insufficient to support rebuttal of the Combined Values Chart.
From the decision · page 4In his Petition for Reconsideration, applicant cites heavily to the deposition of the regular physician, Jeffrey Hirsch, M.D., For example, applicant argues:
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.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's vocational expert's opinion on rebutting the Combined Values Chart was disregarded as irrelevant because the expert is not a medical doctor.
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.