What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Amended Findings and Award issued by a WCJ on May 7, 2025, challenging the apportionment analysis and combined award.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 23, 2024, September 23, 2022.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The WCJ and WCAB found that Dr. Hasday's apportionment analysis addressed impairment and causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability as required by Labor Code section 4663, thus it was not substantial evidence. The combined award for 100% permanent total disability without apportionment was upheld.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 7, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part: that as to the issue of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code section 4663, agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Hasday's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence; that applicant is entitled to an un-apportioned combined award; and that in accordance with the September 23, 2022 opinion of the Appeals Board1 and the previous September 8, 2021 Findings and Awards of WCJ Devine, applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled on an industrial basis, without apportionment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Hasday's apportionment opinion addressed impairment and causation of injury, not permanent disability apportionment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This distinction led the WCJ and WCAB to reject the opinion as substantial evidence for apportionment under Labor Code section 4663 and uphold a combined award without apportionment.
From the decision · page 21And this is both a logical and reasonable reading of the statute in light of its purpose. If a pre-existing condition or prior injury contributes to the applicant's alteration of his capacity to meet occupational demands, the statute removes that contribution f om the disability portion that can be allocated as the employer's responsibility. But the Guides themselves recognize within the very first pages of the text 11 that impairment does not automatically cause disability, and it can be similarly stated that the pre-existence of degenerative changes does not automatically contribute to a person's disability following an injury. In those instances where a medical evaluator believes that non-industrial factors have indeed caused a portion of applicant's permanent disability, the evaluator must explain 12 how and why those factors are causing disability in the specific portions approximated by the doctor. If the doctor does not do this, the apportionment is invalid.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Hasday provided a detailed causation analysis and apportionment opinion attributing portions of impairment to industrial and preexisting conditions, but did not validly apportion permanent disability as required by Labor Code section 4663.
The decision found Dr. Hasday's opinion addressed impairment and causation of injury, not disability apportionment, thus not substantial evidence for apportionment under Labor Code section 4663.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 7, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part: that as to the issue of apportionment pursuant to Labor Code section 4663, agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Hasday's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence; that applicant is entitled to an un-apportioned combined award; and that in accordance with the September 23, 2022 opinion of the Appeals Board1 and the previous September 8, 2021 Findings and Awards of WCJ Devine, applicant is 100% permanently totally disabled on an industrial basis, without apportionment.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604
The WCJ and WCAB applied this standard to reject Dr. Hasday's apportionment opinion as not addressing disability apportionment.
From the decision · page 9In order to comply with section 4663, a physician's report in which permanent disability is addressed must also address apportionment of that permanent disability. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 [2005 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 71] (Appeals Bd. en banc) (Escobedo).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Hasday's apportionment opinion addressed impairment and causation of injury rather than disability apportionment.
From the decision · page 21And this is both a logical and reasonable reading of the statute in light of its purpose. If a pre-existing condition or prior injury contributes to the applicant's alteration of his capacity to meet occupational demands, the statute removes that contribution f om the disability portion that can be allocated as the employer's responsibility. But the Guides themselves recognize within the very first pages of the text 11 that impairment does not automatically cause disability, and it can be similarly stated that the pre-existence of degenerative changes does not automatically contribute to a person's disability following an injury. In those instances where a medical evaluator believes that non-industrial factors have indeed caused a portion of applicant's permanent disability, the evaluator must explain 12 how and why those factors are causing disability in the specific portions approximated by the doctor. If the doctor does not do this, the apportionment is invalid.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.