What the panel ordered
The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the January 25, 2021 Findings and Award, and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the medical record on permanent disability and apportionment.
Defendant Safeway, Inc. sought reconsideration of the January 25, 2021 Findings and Award regarding permanent disability and apportionment; the WCJ had found 28% permanent disability after apportionment.
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 Board found that the medical evidence was insufficient to support the apportionment determination because the QME report was based on an incomplete medical record and applicant's imperfect memory, thus requiring further development of the record.
From the decision · page 3Therefore, before we can address whether the WCJ appropriately applied apportionment pursuant to Labor Code section 4664(b), the record must include substantial evidence pertaining to apportionment to causation of applicant's January 5, 2017 injury pursuant to Section 4663. (Escobedo v Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) For a medical opinion on apportionment to constitute substantial evidence, the opinion must be framed in terms of "reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at 621-622.) We will therefore return this matter to