What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration is granted. Final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits and the entire record.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on September 3, 2025, by the WCJ. The WCJ found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment and permanent disability of 100%. The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review and record development.
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 found 100% permanent disability based on medical opinions including Dr. Mandell and Dr. Feinberg, but the Appeals Board found the record incomplete and unclear on the permanent disability analysis and employability, requiring further development and reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4The Agreed Medical Examiner (AME), Dr. Peter Mandell, has provided numerous reports. He found her to be permanent and stationary in his report of October 1, 2020 (Exh. 107) and addressed the permanent impairment of 8% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for the left shoulder and 14% WPI for the cervical spine, with no apportionment of permanent disability. In his December 19, 2020 report (Exh. 105), Dr. Mandell clarified that applicant is totally disabled "due to a combination of her orthopedic and CRPS problems." He also recommended that she see a neurologist or specialist in CRPS. In his latest report of August 17, 2023 (Exh. 101), Dr. Mandell noted at p. 6 that her reviewed conflicting medical opinions regarding the CRPS diagnosis and indicated that she "probably" does have CRPS. He then stated at p. 7 that she is 100% unemployable, due to a combination of her musculoskeletal problems and her CRPS.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained injury to left shoulder, neck, and claims injury to chronic regional pain syndrome, back, and bilateral upper extremities.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This establishes the scope of injury relevant to permanent disability and the need for medical evaluation.
From the decision · page 41) Applicant, Javonna the applicant, while employed on February 5, 2018, as a medication technician, at Alameda, California, by Oakmont Management Group, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her left shoulder and neck; and claims3 to have sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to chronic regional pain syndrome, back, and bilateral upper extremities. 2) Applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 100%. 3) Applicant is in need of further medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of the injury.
Dr. Mandell found applicant permanent and stationary with 8% WPI for left shoulder and 14% WPI for cervical spine, and later opined total disability due to orthopedic and CRPS problems.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the finding of permanent disability but requires further clarification on total disability rating.
From the decision · page 4The Agreed Medical Examiner (AME), Dr. Peter Mandell, has provided numerous reports. He found her to be permanent and stationary in his report of October 1, 2020 (Exh. 107) and addressed the permanent impairment of 8% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for the left shoulder and 14% WPI for the cervical spine, with no apportionment of permanent disability. In his December 19, 2020 report (Exh. 105), Dr. Mandell clarified that applicant is totally disabled "due to a combination of her orthopedic and CRPS problems." He also recommended that she see a neurologist or specialist in CRPS. In his latest report of August 17, 2023 (Exh. 101), Dr. Mandell noted at p. 6 that her reviewed conflicting medical opinions regarding the CRPS diagnosis and indicated that she "probably" does have CRPS. He then stated at p. 7 that she is 100% unemployable, due to a combination of her musculoskeletal problems and her CRPS.
Dr. Feinberg found neuropathic pain and probable CRPS component and agreed applicant could not reengage in open labor market, deferring to Dr. Mandell on impairment rating.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the claim of permanent disability and unemployability but leaves rating details unclear.
From the decision · page 5Dr. Feinberg issued his initial report on February 4, 2025 (Exh. 112), wherein he found that applicant has some type of neuropathic pain in addition to a cervical radiculopathy and left shoulder structural abnormalities. He further asserted that it is more probable than not that there is a CRPS like component to her presentation. He further stated that he agrees with Dr. Mandell that she could not reengage in the open labor market. With respect to the WPI, Dr. Mandell found 45% WPI on the strict application of the AMA Guides, but he posited that the most accurate AMA Guides rating is 60% WPI.
The medical record is incomplete and unclear on permanent disability analysis and employability, requiring further development.
Favours neutral
This lack of clarity necessitates reconsideration and further record development to ensure substantial evidence supports the decision.
From the decision · page 10The Appeals Board also has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Board may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.) Here, Dr. Mandell's reports remain unclear and/or incomplete regarding analysis of applicant's permanent disability analysis. Similarly, Dr. Feinberg's reporting may need further clarification as to whether the 60% WPI is applied solely to the CRPS or to all AOE/COE body parts. For these reasons, additional discovery appears necessary to obtain a complete and substantial medical opinion regarding the applicant's CRPS.As such, it appears that the existing record may not properly set forth all relevant issues and include all evidence sufficient to support the decision, findings, award, and legal conclusions of the WCJ, and thus further development of the record may be necessary with respect to the issues noted above.
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.
Found applicant permanent and stationary with 8% WPI for left shoulder and 14% WPI for cervical spine, no apportionment; later opined total disability due to orthopedic and CRPS problems; noted probable CRPS and 100% unemployability due to musculoskeletal and CRPS issues.
From the decision · page 4The Agreed Medical Examiner (AME), Dr. Peter Mandell, has provided numerous reports. He found her to be permanent and stationary in his report of October 1, 2020 (Exh. 107) and addressed the permanent impairment of 8% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) for the left shoulder and 14% WPI for the cervical spine, with no apportionment of permanent disability. In his December 19, 2020 report (Exh. 105), Dr. Mandell clarified that applicant is totally disabled "due to a combination of her orthopedic and CRPS problems." He also recommended that she see a neurologist or specialist in CRPS. In his latest report of August 17, 2023 (Exh. 101), Dr. Mandell noted at p. 6 that her reviewed conflicting medical opinions regarding the CRPS diagnosis and indicated that she "probably" does have CRPS. He then stated at p. 7 that she is 100% unemployable, due to a combination of her musculoskeletal problems and her CRPS.
Found neuropathic pain and cervical radiculopathy with probable CRPS component; agreed applicant could not reengage in open labor market; deferred to Dr. Mandell on impairment rating combining cervical and shoulder impairments or using 60% WPI for all impairments.
From the decision · page 5Dr. Feinberg issued his initial report on February 4, 2025 (Exh. 112), wherein he found that applicant has some type of neuropathic pain in addition to a cervical radiculopathy and left shoulder structural abnormalities. He further asserted that it is more probable than not that there is a CRPS like component to her presentation. He further stated that he agrees with Dr. Mandell that she could not reengage in the open labor market. With respect to the WPI, Dr. Mandell found 45% WPI on the strict application of the AMA Guides, but he posited that the most accurate AMA Guides rating is 60% WPI.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4660
Labor Code section 4660 governs permanent disability rating using the Combined Values Chart (CVC).
The WCJ must follow the rating process outlined in section 4660 and cannot ignore the scheduled rating without substantial justification.
From the decision · page 8C. We consider a variety of legal principals in the evaluation of impairment and rebutting the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Fitzpatrick case allows a party to rebut the PDRS. (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (Fitzpatrick), (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 607, [ 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680].) The scheduled rating (or component parts of the rating) may be rebutted based on the specific circumstances of a case. (See Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1266§ 1276; Contra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 746, 755§ 761 [193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7]; Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 187 Cal. App. 4th 808, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112. Fitzpatrick established that Labor Code section 4660 governs how a finding and award of permanent total disability (PTD) is made "in accordance with the fact" under Labor Code § 4662, subdivision (b).
Labor Code section 4662
Labor Code section 4662(b) allows finding permanent total disability in accordance with fact but must follow the rating schedule.
Section 4662(b) does not provide an alternative path to PTD that bypasses the rating schedule; the rating schedule must be rebutted properly.
From the decision · page 8It clarified that section 4662(b) does not provide an independent, alternative path to a finding of PTD that bypasses the permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) and its requirement to use the Combined Values Chart (CVC). The court determined that section 4662(b), which allows for PTD to be found "in accordance with the fact" for injuries not listed as presumed total in section 4662(a), must still follow the rating process outlined in section 4660. This means a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) cannot simply ignore the scheduled rating (which uses the CVC to combine multiple disabilities) and find
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick)
Fitzpatrick case allows rebuttal of the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) based on specific circumstances.
The scheduled rating or its components may be rebutted with proper evidence and justification.
From the decision · page 8C. We consider a variety of legal principals in the evaluation of impairment and rebutting the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). The Fitzpatrick case allows a party to rebut the PDRS. (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (Fitzpatrick), (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 607, [ 83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680].) The scheduled rating (or component parts of the rating) may be rebutted based on the specific circumstances of a case. (See Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1266§ 1276; Contra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 746, 755§ 761 [193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7]; Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 187 Cal. App. 4th 808, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112. Fitzpatrick established that Labor Code section 4660 governs how a finding and award of permanent total disability (PTD) is made "in accordance with the fact" under Labor Code § 4662, subdivision (b).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Conflicting medical opinions on CRPS diagnosis requiring further development
From the decision · page 5Following the trial in July of 2024, I found that because of the complexity of this diagnosis and the differing opinions of Dr. Shen, Dr. Cheng and Dr. Emad on the issue of the disputed CRPS diagnosis, the record was in need of further development. I appointed Dr. Steven Feinberg as an Independent Medical Examiner to address the CRPS issue.
Lack of clarity and completeness in medical reports regarding permanent disability and employability
From the decision · page 10The Appeals Board also has a constitutional mandate to "ensure substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].) The Board may not leave matters undeveloped where it is clear that additional discovery is needed. (Id. at p. 404.) Here, Dr. Mandell's reports remain unclear and/or incomplete regarding analysis of applicant's permanent disability analysis. Similarly, Dr. Feinberg's reporting may need further clarification as to whether the 60% WPI is applied solely to the CRPS or to all AOE/COE body parts. For these reasons, additional discovery appears necessary to obtain a complete and substantial medical opinion regarding the applicant's CRPS.As such, it appears that the existing record may not properly set forth all relevant issues and include all evidence sufficient to support the decision, findings, award, and legal conclusions of the WCJ, and thus further development of the record may be necessary with respect to the issues noted above.
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.