Kite — combining impairments

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.

• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.6III. Defendant further contends that applicant failed to satisfy the requirements outlined under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees. (Petition, p. 4.) Pursuant to section 4660.1, the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274-1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are "generally" combined using the CVC, which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1- 10.)Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee's whole person impairment so long as the physician's opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides.

  Applicant may rebut CVC by showing ADLs impacted and non-overlapping or amplifying effects.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11850265 · 2026-04-28 · Salinas District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.4Thus, under the Guides, there is no hard and fast method for combining the disabilities, multiple methods have been legitimately used, based upon the extent to which they affect an individual's ability to perform activities of daily living; and the physician can apply his skills and judgment to decide which method most accurately reflects the overall impairment. In Athens Administrators v. WCAB (Kite) (2013) 78 CCC 213 the Board acknowledged this standard, agreeing that the Guides provision for applying the CVT is rebuttable, with the caveat that the physician must explain and justify the physician's choice of method.

  The Board relied on this precedent to uphold Dr. Stone's additive method as justified and supported by substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18574715 · 2026-04-10 · Santa Rosa District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.4Under Kite, impairments may be added if substantial medical evidence supports a physician's opinion that adding impairments will result in a more accurate rating of the applicant's level of disability than the rating that results from the use of the CVC. (Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 213.) Specifically, in Kite, the QME recommended the addition of the separate ratings for the right and left hips as the best way to combine impairments, rather than using the Combined Values Chart (CVC), which would reduce the overall rating. The QME went on to state that there was a "synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body parts from different regions of the body" that warranted addition rather than combining under the CVC.

  Applied to support addition of impairments for different body parts when ADLs do not overlap.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.10Moreover, pursuant to Fitzpatrick, supra, impairments "are generally combined" using the combined values chart (CVC) found in the permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS). However, the "scheduled rating is not absolute" and other methodologies may be used to calculate permanent disability. (Id. at p. 614.) Thus, while the PDRS is prima facie evidence of an employee's permanent disability, it is rebuttable. (Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School Dist. (Almaraz-Guzman II) (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, 1106 (Appeals Board en banc); see Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (Appeals Board en banc); City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cannon) (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1360, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1.) Ultimately, however, the goal in rating impairments is accuracy. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman III) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].)

  Applied to support addition of impairments rather than CVC in this case.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ16389400 · 2026-03-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.3In the intervening time, the [Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)] issued an en banc decision explaining the evidence necessary to support rebuttal of the [Combined Values Chart (CVC)] pursuant to Kite. Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 CCC 686, 689-690. The WCAB held that the CVC in the permanent disability ratings schedule (PDRS) can be rebutted and impairments may be added when an applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs) and that either: (1) There is no overlap between the effects on ADLs for the body parts rated. Or (2) There is overlap, but it increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Id.).

  The WCAB found the evidence supported adding impairments for both knees under Kite and Vigil.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12781361 · 2026-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.6In Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater

  Applied to justify adding impairments rather than combining

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11122058 · 2025-12-12 · Riverside District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.3In Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680], the Court of Appeal found that permanent disability "are generally combined" using the CVC though the "scheduled rating [under the CVC] is not absolute" and other methodologies may be used to calculate permanent disability. (Id., pp.613-614.) Thus, while the scheduled rating is prima facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability, the scheduled rating is rebuttable. (Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School Dist. (Almaraz-Guzman II) (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, 1106 (Appeals Board en banc); see Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (Appeals Board en banc); City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cannon) (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1360 [79 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The overarching goal of rating permanent impairment is to achieve accuracy. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman III) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].) (Almaraz-Guzman III, supra, at p. 822.)

  The Board applied these precedents to determine that addition of impairments was appropriate based on medical evidence showing independent impacts on ADLs and a synergistic effect.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ10413544 · 2025-12-09 · Fresno District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.7Turning now to the merits of the Petition, in Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater than that reflected through use of the CVC, the impairments should be added for purposes of accuracy. In Kite, the applicant underwent bilateral hip replacement surgeries and the orthopedic QME opined that due to a "synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body parts from different regions of the body," "the best way to combine the impairments to the right and left hips would be to add them versus using the combined values chart, which would result in a lower whole person impairment." (Id. at p. 5.) Accordingly, the WCJ in Kite found that the impairment for the applicant's hips should be added rather than combined.

  Applied to affirm the use of the addition method for impairment rating in ADJ10413544.

  Official decision · page 7 →