What the panel ordered
The WCJ's December 1, 2020 Findings and Award is rescinded and the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on December 1, 2020, which found industrial injury and permanent disability rating using the Combined Values Chart (CVC). The WCAB granted reconsideration to study the factual and legal issues further.
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 WCAB found that the parties litigated the issue under an incorrect legal theory focusing on body parts rather than overlapping activities of daily living (ADLs). The medical evaluators failed to establish whether the impact on ADLs overlapped or if there was a synergistic impact. Therefore, the matter was remanded for further development of the record to address the correct standard for CVC rebuttal.
From the decision · page 6The parties proceeded to trial on an incorrect legal theory. Throughout the reporting in this matter the evaluators failed to establish whether the impact upon applicant's ADLs overlapped. If applicant's ADL impacts do overlap, the evaluators failed to opine on whether there was a synergistic impact upon the ADLs. In deposition, applicant focused on whether the body parts rated were distinct. That issue is irrelevant.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The parties litigated the CVC rebuttal issue using an incorrect legal theory focusing on body parts rather than overlapping activities of daily living (ADLs).
Favours Defendant prevailed
This misunderstanding led to insufficient evidence on whether the ADL impacts overlapped or had a synergistic effect, necessitating further development of the record.
From the decision · page 5no overlap of ADLs; however, instead of discussing the issue of ADLs with Dr. Woolf, applicant instead focused his questioning on the issue of body parts. The Appeals Board noted that such an analysis is a significant point of confusion in CVC rebuttal: "We believe that one significant point
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. Woolf opined that the hypertension and kidney dysfunction impairments should be added to the orthopedic impairments because they are distinct, separate, and non-overlapping impairments affecting different activities of daily living.
The opinion addresses whether the impairments overlap in their impact on activities of daily living, relevant to rebutting the Combined Values Chart.
From the decision · page 4In my opinion, the WPI rating for the hypertension (which includes the kidney dysfunction) should be added to the orthopedic injuries as these are distinct, separate and non-overlapping impairments. The cardiac and kidney conditions have no bearing on the orthopedic conditions and vice versa. They are connected by the pain from the orthopedic injuries and the use of the NSAIDs but the actual impairments are not related. For example, the ADLs have been affected by the orthopedic issues which are not affected by the internal medicine issues. His weight affects the orthopedic injuries due to the excess strain on the joints whereas the weight affects the stress on the heart which contributes to the hypertension. Again, no apportionment to obesity is indicated in a peace officer with LVH.
Dr. Einbund initially rated cervical and lumbar spine impairments and later increased the ratings based on radiculopathy verified by imaging and EMG studies.
The opinion provides the orthopedic impairment ratings relevant to the combined permanent disability rating and the issue of overlap.
From the decision · page 2Dr. Einbund initially assigned 5% whole-person impairment (WPI) to applicant's cervical spine using the Diagnosis Related Estimate (DRE) II chart of the AMA Guides. (Joint Exhibit 8, Report of Michael Einbund, M.D. June 28, 2018, p. 11.) He assigned applicant 6% WPI to the lumbar spine, again using the DRE-II chart. (Ibid.) Applicant had no other orthopedic impairments. (See generally, id.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Vigil v. County of Kern (2024)
The Combined Values Chart (CVC) may be rebutted and impairments may be added where an applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs) and that either (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.
The parties litigated the issue under an incorrect legal theory focusing on body parts rather than overlapping ADLs. The WCAB returned the matter for further development to address the correct standard for CVC rebuttal.
From the decision · page 5The Combined Values Chart (CVC) in the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) may be rebutted and impairments may be added where an applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs) and that either:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's deposition questioning focused on body parts rather than overlapping activities of daily living (ADLs), which is the relevant standard for rebutting the CVC.
From the decision · page 5no overlap of ADLs; however, instead of discussing the issue of ADLs with Dr. Woolf, applicant instead focused his questioning on the issue of body parts. The Appeals Board noted that such an analysis is a significant point of confusion in CVC rebuttal: "We believe that one significant point
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.