Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities
Use of the Combined Values Chart (CVC) for combining permanent disabilities under the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities.
The Board applied the CVC to combine disabilities except for thumbs and feet, which were added separately as accepted by the WCJ.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's
(WCJ) Findings and Award of January 4, 2022 wherein it was found that, while employed as a
firefighter during a cumulative period ending March 30, 2018, applicant sustained industrial injury
in the form of hypertension, coronary artery disease, hands including thumbs, shoulders, feet
including toes, and to the upper digestive tract in the form of a hiatal hernia causing permanent
disability of 89%. In finding permanent disability of 89%, applicant's right and left thumb
disabilities were added together rather than combined utilizing the Combined Values Chart in the
2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, as were applicant's right and left foot
disabilities. The disabilities were otherwise combined utilizing the Combined Values Chart. (2005
Schedule at pp. 8-1 § 8-4.)
Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.)
Adding impairments rather than combining when substantial medical evidence shows synergistic effect.
The Board distinguished Kite, noting that here the orthopedic and internal medicine impairments were found by different specialists and no compelling reason was given to add rather than combine.
From the decision · page 2In Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases
213 (writ den.), we held that adding, rather than combining, two different impairments better
reflected a worker's impairment when substantial medical evidence supported the notion that the
two impairments had a synergistic effect where, in effect, the resultant impairment was more than
the sum of the two impairments. In Kite, the evaluator explained why the disparate impairments
were not actually disparate, and the impairments in question were all under the physician's
expertise.1 In contrast, here one specialist is suggesting that we add impairments found by him in
his own specialty to impairments in completely different body systems found by a different
specialist. As an orthopedist, it was Dr. Silverman's role to describe and give a whole person
impairment with regard to the orthopedic impairment. Dr. Silverman did not give any compelling
reason why the orthopedic and internal medicine impairments should be added, and questions
beyond applicant's orthopedic impairment, including applicant's overall impairment or the
operation of the CVC, are beyond Dr. Silverman's expertise. (Applied Materials v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (D.C.) (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1097 [86 Cal.Comp.Cases 331].)
Applied Materials v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (D.C.) (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1097 [86 Cal.Comp.Cases 331]
Limits of an orthopedist's expertise in opining on overall impairment and Combined Values Chart operation.
The Board noted Dr. Silverman did not provide compelling reasons beyond his orthopedic impairment and that questions beyond his specialty were beyond his expertise.
From the decision · page 2In Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases
213 (writ den.), we held that adding, rather than combining, two different impairments better
reflected a worker's impairment when substantial medical evidence supported the notion that the
two impairments had a synergistic effect where, in effect, the resultant impairment was more than
the sum of the two impairments. In Kite, the evaluator explained why the disparate impairments
were not actually disparate, and the impairments in question were all under the physician's
expertise.1 In contrast, here one specialist is suggesting that we add impairments found by him in
his own specialty to impairments in completely different body systems found by a different
specialist. As an orthopedist, it was Dr. Silverman's role to describe and give a whole person
impairment with regard to the orthopedic impairment. Dr. Silverman did not give any compelling
reason why the orthopedic and internal medicine impairments should be added, and questions
beyond applicant's orthopedic impairment, including applicant's overall impairment or the
operation of the CVC, are beyond Dr. Silverman's expertise. (Applied Materials v. Workers'
Comp. Appeals Bd. (D.C.) (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1097 [86 Cal.Comp.Cases 331].)