Leading citation
Brodie v. WCAB (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313
What this holding is
Brodie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313 is the Supreme Court’s reading of the 2004 apportionment amendments and overlapping permanent disability. Escobedo is the how-and-why medical-opinion rule; Brodie is the statutory frame. These are later panels applying that frame.
How later panels applied it
Newest released decisions whose legal-standard extraction named this holding. Each quotes the passage and links to the official PDF. The leading case is cited the way courts cite it; our own cards stay ADJ, date, and issue. Litigated tail — not a win rate.
- ADJ11087603 · 2026-06-05 · Marina del Rey District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.4Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111, the state's highest court noted that permanent disability is "understood as `the irreversible residual of an injury." Citing State Comp. Ins. Fund v. I.A.C. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 45, 52, the court observed that permanent disability "causes impairment of earning capacity, impairment of the normal use of a member, or a competitive handicap in the open labor market.'" The court concluded that permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for "both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity." (Brodie, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1320.)
The Board cited this definition to frame the nature of permanent disability in this case.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ14079246 · 2026-05-26 · San Francisco District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.4The workers' compensation system includes compensation for permanent disability. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1320.) "'[P]ermanent disability is understood as `the irreversible residual of an injury.'" (Id. at p. 1320, quoting Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111.) "Thus, permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity." (Brodie, supra, at p. 1320, citing Lab. Code, § 4660(a).)
Applied to assess permanent disability in this case.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ9195893 · 2026-04-01 · San Diego District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.11II. APPORTIONMENT Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1321; Marsh v. Workers'Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787.].) The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 927-928 [71Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].) Instead, apportionment of permanent disability is "based on causation" and the "employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab.Code, § 4663(a) and 4664(a).) "The plain reading of `causation' in this context is causation of the permanent disability." (Escobedo v.
Applied to evaluate and reject nonindustrial apportionment in this case.
Official decision · page 11 → - ADJ12061992 · 2026-03-25 · San Francisco District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.4Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565]; Marsh v. Workers'Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787.].)
The Board applied these standards to find the PQME's apportionment opinion legally insufficient and lacking substantial medical foundation.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.9Section 4660 provides that permanent disability is determined by consideration of whole person impairment within the four corners of the AMA Guides, as applied by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) in light of the medical record and the effect of the injury on the worker's future earning capacity. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565] ["permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity"]; Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680] (Fitzpatrick); Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837] (Guzman).)
Applied to assess permanent disability rating and rebuttal of scheduled rating.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ10219413 · 2025-12-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.4III. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Section 4660 provides that permanent disability is determined by consideration of whole person impairment within the four corners of the AMA Guides, as applied by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) in light of the medical record and the effect of the injury on the worker's future earning capacity. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565] ["permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity"]; Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680] (Fitzpatrick); Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Applied to assess permanent disability and apportionment in this case.
Official decision · page 4 → - ADJ11372081 · 2025-11-17 · Van Nuys District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.9Section 4660.1 provides that permanent disability is determined by consideration of whole person impairment within the four corners of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides), as applied by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) in light of the medical record and the effect of the injury on the worker's future earning capacity. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1320 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565] ["permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity"]; Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680]; Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Service/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084 (Appeals Board en banc) as affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].)
Applied to assess permanent disability ratings and the method of combining impairments.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ11229680 · 2025-10-13 · Van Nuys District OfficeBrodie
Determinative passage · p.5The award in this case is not an award of temporary disability benefits, but of permanent disability indemnity. Permanent disability, unlike temporary disability, does not compensate solely for lost wages. As acknowledged by the California Supreme Court in Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, permanent disability is understood as "the irreversible residual of an injury." (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1320 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565], citing Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].)
The Board applied this standard to reject credits for wages and temporary disability benefits against permanent disability indemnity.
Official decision · page 5 →
All 23 decisions applying it →
Also on this
About Brodie
What is Brodie on overlapping permanent disability?
Brodie v. WCAB (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313 is the Supreme Court’s reading of the 2004 apportionment amendments and overlapping PD. Escobedo is the how-and-why medical-opinion rule; Brodie is the statutory frame. This page is later panels applying that frame.
Should I read Escobedo or Brodie first?
For a medical opinion’s how-and-why, Escobedo. For overlapping PD after SB 899, Brodie. Both can appear in one decision; the pages stay separate so the titles match how people search.