ADJ11252084 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; applicant found permanently totally disabled; defendant's petition otherwise denied

Petition for Reconsideration granted to amend Findings of Fact number 13 to find applicant permanently totally disabled; otherwise affirming the April 17, 2024 First Amended Findings and Award

Read the official decision →

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.

Permanent total disabilityApplicant prevailedbrain · neck · psychiatric · vision · orthopedic

The WCJ and panel found applicant permanently totally disabled based on medical and vocational expert opinions, including the vocational expert's finding of unemployability and corroboration by treating physicians, with no apportionment found.

From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the Report and the Opinion on Decision of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration to amend Findings of Fact number 13 to find that applicant is permanently totally disabled. For the reasons stated below and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Opinion on Decision, both of which we adopt and incorporate, except as noted below, we will otherwise affirm the April 17, 2024 First Amended Findings and Award (F&A).

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.

PTPRelied upon · neurology

Applicant is permanently totally disabled from an employment perspective due to a combination of physical and psychiatric impairments, chronic pain disorder, and vision impairments, requiring assistance in activities of daily living.

Relied upon by WCJ and panel to find permanent total disability.

From the decision · page 6Dr. Sivtsov reported in his Panel QME Re-Evaluation dated April 12, 2021, indicated that at that time, applicant was not ready to join the workforce due to abnormally low GAF score. (Defendant's Exhibit H) Dr. Schweller, in his report dated June 20, 2022, indicated that applicant has a combination of physical and psychiatric impairments, chronic pain disorder and vision impairments that make her unemployable. She is permanently totally disabled from an employment perspective. (Applicant's Exhibit 1) Furthermore, in Dr. Schweller's permanent and stationary report states that applicant has a "Total disability: it appears to me that the combination of physical and psychiatric impairments, chronic pain disorder and vision impairments make this woman unemployable, totally disabled from an employment perspective and she requires assistance in her activities of daily living especially needing someone to help her with activities involving running or maintaining her home, as well as assisting her in activities where she would be likely to provoke episodes of pain or vertigo." Dr. Lyons indicated in his 8/10/2022 report that he reviewed the

secondary_treaterRelied upon · psychology

Reviewed vocational expert's opinion of unemployability and adopted it, supporting permanent total disability finding.

Supported vocational expert's opinion and WCJ's finding.

vocational_expertRelied upon

Found applicant suffered diminished future earning capacity and is not amenable to vocational rehabilitation, supporting permanent total disability.

Relied upon by WCJ and panel for unemployability and diminished earning capacity.

vocational_expertRelied upon

Found applicant not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and meeting criteria for total disability under Labor Code 4600 and 4662.

Supported permanent total disability finding.

ADJ11252084 · July 5, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page