California Labor Code § 4660

Determinative passage · p.6The touchstone of the workers' compensation system is industrial injury which results in occupational disability or death. Livitsanos v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 744, 752. The American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th Edition, 2001) ("AMA Guides") provides impairment ratings meant to reflect an injured worker's functional limitations and the decrease in the individual's ability to perform common activities of daily living. § 1.2(a). Permanent disability, on the other hand, "causes impairment of earning capacity, impairment of the normal use of a member or a competitive handicap in the open labor market." Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1320. The California Permanent Disability Rating Schedule ("PDRS") is "prima facie evidence of the percentage of permanent disability to be attributed to each injury covered by the schedule." Lab. Code § 4660(c); Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 837, *17. For a reporting physician’s conclusions regarding impairment to be considered substantial medical evidence, they must provide a report that is "clear, accurate, and complete". AMA Guides § 2.6.

The AMA Guides and PDRS were applied to assess permanent disability.

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”];

Applied to assess permanent disability rating in this case.

Determinative passage · p.10Hence an award for 100% is warranted under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4660. Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4662(b) Under Cal. Lab. Code sec. 4662(b) total disability is determined “in accordance with the fact.” In essence the medical evidence can rebut the ratings under sec. 4660.

The decision applied Labor Code sections 4660 and 4662(b) to support the additive approach to impairments and total disability award.

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the “Findings and Award” (F&A) issued on September 2, 2025, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant was not entitled to an award of temporary disability because he was capable of working modified duty, but did not work. Applicant contends that defendant failed to offer modified work within applicant’s work restrictions. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that we deny reconsideration or grant reconsideration to amend the findings of fact to find that defendant offered appropriate work to applicant. Thereafter, we issued an order granting the petition, pending further review of the entire record. Subsequently, the parties successfully participated in a voluntary mediation at the Appeals Board. On July 16, 2026, the parties advised that a proposed settlement by stipulation and order had been reached, and requested return of the matter to the trial level for review of the proposed settlement.

Relevant to temporary disability and modified work offer dispute

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.

Determinative passage · p.81. Applicant asserts that he is 100% permanently totally disabled based on the conclusive presumption of section 4662(a) for "loss of both hands or use thereof" or, alternatively, that he has successfully rebutted the PDRS. (Petition, p. 3, lns 49-51; p. 5, lns 134-137.) There are no other challenges to the FA&O. We will first address the claim of PDRS rebuttal. The State Legislature has set the foundation for establishing disability as the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS), which is prima facie evidence of applicant's level of permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660(c), 4660.1(d).) Further, the Legislature has incorporated the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (AMA Guides) into the PDRS for evaluating physical injury or disfigurement. Section 4660.1 states in the relevant part: (a) In determining the percentages of permanent partial or permanent total disability, account shall be taken of the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee, and the employee's age at the time of injury.

The WCAB applied the PDRS and AMA Guides as the basis for disability rating and found no medical basis to rebut them.

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.

Determinative passage · p.5The opinions of orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum are deficient with respect to rating and apportionment of cervical spine disability. Labor Code section 4660, subsection (b)(1) requires the use of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides) in assessing the nature of an injury or disfigurement for purposes of determining a percentage of permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660(b)(1).) Chapter 15 of the AMA Guides requires the use of the Range of Motion (ROM) method instead of a Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) in cases involving more than one segment within the same region of the spine. (AMA Guides, § 15.2, pp. 379-381.) Because applicant had a prior surgery to a separate segment of her cervical spine, the ROM method should have been used to assess whole person impairment (WPI) of the cervical spine, unless the physician provided substantial medical evidence demonstrating how and why a more accurate rating required the use of another method set forth in the AMA Guides, as discussed

Applied to assess adequacy of AME's rating method for cervical spine impairment.