Nunes — vocational expert opinions after 2013

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.

• ADJ7316783 · 2026-09-24 · Goleta District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.15requires a reporting physician to make medical determinations in a case, including determinations on the issue of apportionment. The Appeals Board further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability, and that vocational evidence must address apportionment, but that a vocational evaluator may not opine on issues that require expert medical evidence. The Appeals Board affirmed these holdings in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (August 29, 2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894 (“Nunes II”). In the en banc decision in Vigil, the Appeals Board clarified the process for rebutting the CVC. One element of the PDRS is the Combined Values Chart (CVC).

  Applied to evaluate permanent disability and apportionment evidence.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ15556443 · 2026-09-21 · Lodi District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.4considerations used to evaluate whether a medical expert’s opinion constitutes substantial evidence are equally applicable to vocational reporting. In order to constitute substantial evidence, a vocational expert’s opinion must detail the history and evidence in support of its conclusions, as well as ‘how and why’ any specific condition or factor is causing permanent disability.” (Nunes v. State of California (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, 751 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) The WCJ correctly determined that rebuttal partially based on temporary restrictions from a doctor admitting that the condition was beyond his specialty did not constitute substantial evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability. Nevertheless, our review of the record leads us to conclude that further development of the evidentiary record is needed on the issue of permanent disability.

  The WCJ applied this standard to determine that the vocational report did not constitute substantial evidence because it relied on temporary restrictions from a doctor outside his specialty.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ8507133 · 2026-09-08 · Sacramento District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.7LEXIS 430, *15].) In Benson, we explained that limited situations may justify a joint and several award of permanent disability across multiple dates of injury. (Benson, supra, 72 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 1634.) Where the reporting physician cannot parcel out, with reasonable medical probability, the approximate percentages to which each distinct industrial injury causally contributed to the overall permanent disability, the employee may be entitled to a combined award. (Id. at pp. 1622–1623.) With respect to vocational expert evidence, pursuant to Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Nunes I) (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Appeals Board en banc), the Appeals Board held as follows:

  The WCJ rejected the vocational expert's opinion applying vocational rehabilitation apportionment as invalid.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10837798 · 2026-08-31 · Oakland District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.5development of the record and decision. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Additionally, since the AME and the vocational experts last issued reports in this case, new case law has developed regarding issues that may be relevant to their reporting in this matter. (See, e.g., Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [Appeals Bd. en banc]; Nunes v. State of California (20223) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) We note that the WCJ found the AME’s discussion of apportionment to applicant’s non-industrial diabetes condition inadequate, a finding challenged by defendant in its Petition.

  The Board noted new case law developments relevant to the medical and vocational evidence in this matter.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ4162830 · 2026-08-14 · Marina del Rey District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.10749.) Among the methods described for challenging a rating obtained under the PDRS is establishing that “the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee’s diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee’s scheduled rating.” (Ogilvie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) Our opinion in Nunes I made clear that “[t]he same considerations used to evaluate whether a medical expert’s opinion constitutes substantial evidence are equally applicable to vocational reporting … [i]n order to constitute substantial evidence, a vocational expert’s opinion must detail the history and evidence in support of its conclusions, as well as ‘how and why’ any specific condition or factor is causing permanent disability.” (Nunes I, supra, at p. 751.) Based upon our review of the evidentiary record, including the vocational reports in this matter, we believe that VE Wilson’s opinions are substantial evidence and that applicant has successfully rebutted the PDRS. Wilson completed a full assessment, took a detailed history, and provided evidence and reasoning in support of her conclusions.

  Applied to evaluate vocational expert reports on non-feasibility of return to work.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ19939689 · 2026-07-20 · Goleta District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.6Therefore, defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra at pp. 611, 620-621.) To constitute substantial evidence “…a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Id. at 621.) Causation of disability is not to be confused with causation of injury. (Id. at 611.) Dr. Feingold’s apportionment opinions do not constitute substantial evidence because he does not address the causation of applicant’s disability, instead Dr. Feingold apportioned the applicant’s “impairment.” Evaluating physicians determine the extent of an applicant’s impairment using the AMA Guides, this is a medical determination. Then, the assigned impairment is rated or adjusted for the applicant’s diminished future earning capacity, occupation and age at the time of injury resulting in a level of permanent disability, this is a non-medical determination to account for an applicant’s inability to compete in the open labor market. (Lab.

  The WCAB rejected Dr. Feingold's apportionment opinions because he apportioned impairment rather than disability and failed to explain causation of disability, thus no legal basis for apportionment was found.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ2235268 · 2026-07-13 · Marina del Rey District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.7Nunes I further held that section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make medical determinations in a case, including determinations on the issue of apportionment. The Appeals Board further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability, and that vocational evidence must address apportionment, but that a vocational evaluator may not opine on issues that require expert medical evidence. The Appeals Board affirmed these holdings in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (August 29, 2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894] (“Nunes II”). In sum, a vocational expert is not a medical expert and cannot opine on matters outside their expertise.

  The Appeals Board noted that vocational evidence must address apportionment but a vocational expert cannot opine on medical issues; the WCJ must consider this in further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.14(a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs as between the body parts rated; or (b) there is overlap, but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Vigil, supra, 89 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 694.) In the en banc decision in Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, we held that section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment." However, we further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability. While the PDRS is presumptively correct (see Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 826 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]), "a rating obtained pursuant to the PDRS may be rebutted by showing an applicant's diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the PDRS." (Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 749.) Among the methods described for challenging a rating obtained under the PDRS was establishing that "the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee's diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee's scheduled rating." (Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  Vocational evidence must address apportionment and cannot substitute impermissible vocational apportionment for medical apportionment.

  Official decision · page 14 →