Permanent disability rating

What the Appeals Board did with this

Newest released decisions that turned on this issue. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF. Litigated tail — not a win rate, not a settlement value.

• ADJ8760173 · 2026-10-08 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed on December 27, 2012, as an electrician, sustained an industrial injury to his back, left shoulder, right knee, left ankle, psyche, urologic system, internal system, and in the form of sexual dysfunction, resulting in 100% permanent disability without apportionment. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding 100% permanent disability without apportionment, arguing that the award incorrectly assigns liability for permanent disability not caused by the industrial injury and fails to apply the non-industrial apportionment established by the Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). Specifically, defendant argues that the reporting of applicant’s vocational expert, Ray Largo, M.A., does not constitute substantial evidence because he disregarded the medical apportionment determinations provided by the QMEs. Furthermore, defendant asserts that the WCJ erred by admitting and relying on the medical reporting of Mohammed Zain Vally, M.D., contending Dr. Vally’s reports are inadmissible and do

  The WCAB rejected the medical apportionment determinations by QMEs as legally invalid and lacking substantial medical evidence. The vocational expert's alternative analysis based on purely industrial factors, including psychiatric injury and medication side effects, was accepted, supporting the 100% permanent disability award without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ8492544 · 2026-09-29 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, headaches, sleep loss, hypertension, and diabetes while employed as a management analyst by defendant County of Monterey on April 30, 2008. Defendant admits injury to the cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, and headaches but disputes injury in the form of sleep loss and diabetes. The parties have selected Charles Martin, D.C., as the chiropractic Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Massoud Mahmoudi, D.O., Ph.D., as the QME in internal medicine, and A. K. Bhattacharyya, M.D., as the QME in neurology. On December 9, 2021, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision, in relevant part, the disputed body parts/systems of sleep loss, hypertension and diabetes. (Minutes of Hearing, dated December 9, 2021, at p. 3:3.) The parties also placed in issue permanent disability and “the applicability of the Combined Value Chart versus Additive Method for impairment.” (Id. at p. 3:6.) Neither party offered witness testimony, and the WCJ ordered the matter submitted for decision as of December 17, 2021. On February 2, 2022, the WCJ issued her F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant sustained her burden of establishing industrial injury in the form of hypertension, but not in the form of diabetes or sleep loss. (Finding of Fact No.

  The WCJ found and the WCAB affirmed that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) was appropriately applied to combine impairment ratings, as the evidence did not support adding impairments due to lack of substantial medical evidence for diabetes and sleep loss as industrial injuries.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10401484 · 2026-09-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (Appeals Board en banc) (Vigil), the Appeals Board held that an injured employee can rebut the CVC in the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule and add impairments where they can establish the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs). In addition, they must show either (a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs between the body parts rated, or (b) there is overlap but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. We explained that medical expertise is required: In determining whether the application of the CVC table has been rebutted in a case, an applicant must present evidence explaining what impact applicant’s impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that the impact upon the ADLs overlaps, without more, an applicant has not rebutted the CVC table. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap, the CVC table is rebutted, and it need not be used.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from AME Dr. Lavorgna supporting addition of disabilities rather than using the combined values chart, based on the impact on activities of daily living and the need for a scooter, thus increasing the permanent disability rating to 74%.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ11763808 · 2026-09-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 16, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed on April 20, 2015 as a deli clerk, occupational group number 322 by “Safeway” 1 sustained injury arising out of and in the course of 0F

  The WCJ found applicant sustained injury arising out of employment causing 100% permanent disability and requiring further medical treatment. The Board affirmed the 100% PD finding and amended the award to provide for future medical care generally, based on medical evidence and legal standards for causation and treatment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10656647 · 2026-09-14 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the Joint Findings of Fact, Awards, and Order issued on November 23, 2022 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor: JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all relevant times herein, applicant, born _______, was employed as a groundskeeper (Occupational Group 491) in Colma, California, by defendant HILLS OF ETERNITY/HOME OF PEACE MANAGEMENT GROUP. 2. The defendant employer was insured against compensation liability by defendant AMERICAN FAMILY HOME INSURANCE COMPANY during the calendar year 2014 and by defendant INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST during the calendar year 2015. 3. At all relevant times herein, applicant’s pre-injury earnings were sufficient to entitle him to the maximum statutory permanent partial indemnity weekly rate. 4. In WCAB Case No. ADJ10656667, on April 12, 2015, applicant sustained injury, arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment identified in Finding of Fact No. 1, to his back. 5. In WCAB Case No.

  The Appeals Board found 46% permanent partial disability with no apportionment to other industrial or non-industrial causes, based on the evidence and findings of fact.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ6958667 · 2026-09-11 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8B. Defendant contends Applicant is not entitled to 51 % PD for sleep because Dr. Bertoldi did not provide an Almaraz/Guzman analysis; however, Dr. Bertoldi found Applicant's sleep impairment was caused by a pituitary dysfunction. Thus, the 45% WPI utilizing Chapter 10 of the AMA Guides was Dr. Bertoldi's straight rating, and Almaraz/Guzman does not apply. Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code Section 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 274, 281 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, Mcdonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company, et. al., (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312, 317 935 Cal. Comp. Cases 16].); LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 627,635 [35 Cal. Comp. Cases 16].). In Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 CCC 613, the WCAB held that it is the physician's role to determine the injured worker's WPI under the AMA Guides and to support that

  The 51% PD rating for sleep impairment was upheld because it was a straight AMA Guides rating based on hypothalamic-pituitary axis disorder, not requiring Almaraz/Guzman analysis.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ13514341 · 2026-09-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) 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.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.

  The WCJ and Appeals Board found the opinion of QME Dr. Hindocha to be substantial medical evidence supporting a 71% permanent disability rating by adding impairments due to synergistic effects on activities of daily living (ADLs), rebutting the use of the Combined Values Chart (CVC).

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ18016076 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence and the Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is “based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess.” (Place v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378. In its petition, defendant contends, “Dr. Brewer’s cervical spine impairment rating does not satisfy the AMA Guides 5th Edition requirements for DRE Category III.” DRE Cervical Category III criteria includes: “significant signs of radiculopathy…” (Table 15-5.) Here, QME Dr. Fields Brewer opined applicant’s cervical spine WPI should be placed in DRE III because: - Applicant expresses neck pain radiating to the let upper extremity and numbness/tingling - MRI, multiple-level disc bulging - Diagnosis: cervical radiculopathy (Joint Exhibit 1, p. 12.) That analysis is unrebutted. I adopted the QME’s assigned cervical spine WPI of 17%. Defendant further contends, “Dr. Brewer’s left shoulder impairment rating is methodologically unsupported and speculative” because a left shoulder MRI had not been performed; Dr. Fields Brewer had conducted range of motion studies, however. Utilizing the ROM results, medical records review, examinations of the applicant, and utilization of AMA Guides, Dr. Fields Brewer determined that applicant’s WPI was 4%.

  The QME Dr. Fields Brewer's WPI ratings for cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder, supported by medical examination and AMA Guides criteria, constitute substantial evidence for a 53% permanent disability rating.

  Official decision · page 13 →