ADJ12655039 · February 20, 2026

The WCJ's finding of permanent total disability was not supported by substantial evidence because the vocational expert's opinion went beyond the medical work restrictions and included unsupported work preclusions; the record needed further development.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 25, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on August 7, 2019 as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Paul Broadus, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

Applicant sustained a serious crush injury to the right hand, fingers, and wrist causing significant impairment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This injury and impairment formed the basis for the medical work restrictions and disability evaluation.

From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, applicant sustained a serious crush injury to his dominant right hand, fingers and wrist while attempting to repair a printing machine, when someone turned on the machine while his hand was in it. He was evaluated for his physical injury by agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Kevin Pelton, M.D. Dr. Pelton found that applicant's scheduled AMA Guides rating was a 41% whole person impairment and a 3% whole person impairment pain add- on. (May 7, 2025 report at p. 7.) However, despite being confronted at his deposition with evidence that applicant did have some limited, temporary use of his right hand and fingers, Dr. Pelton opined that applicant had essentially no use of his right hand or wrist, and analogized applicant's impairment as akin to someone with an amputation of the arm/forearm from distal to deltoid insertion to bicipital insertion, which is a 57% whole person impairment. (AMA Guides, Table 16- 4, p. 440.) Thus, Dr.

Medical experts limited work restrictions to loss of use of the right upper extremity; no additional restrictions for pain or psychiatric impairment were medically supported.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The lack of medically supported additional work restrictions undermined the vocational expert's opinion of permanent total disability.

Found 41% whole person impairment plus 3% pain add-on; opined loss of use of right upper extremity; medically eligible for vocational rehabilitation.

Provided the medical work restrictions and impairment ratings relevant to disability and vocational rehabilitation.

From the decision · page 3Turning to the merits, applicant sustained a serious crush injury to his dominant right hand, fingers and wrist while attempting to repair a printing machine, when someone turned on the machine while his hand was in it. He was evaluated for his physical injury by agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Kevin Pelton, M.D. Dr. Pelton found that applicant's scheduled AMA Guides rating was a 41% whole person impairment and a 3% whole person impairment pain add- on. (May 7, 2025 report at p. 7.) However, despite being confronted at his deposition with evidence that applicant did have some limited, temporary use of his right hand and fingers, Dr. Pelton opined that applicant had essentially no use of his right hand or wrist, and analogized applicant's impairment as akin to someone with an amputation of the arm/forearm from distal to deltoid insertion to bicipital insertion, which is a 57% whole person impairment. (AMA Guides, Table 16- 4, p. 440.) Thus, Dr.

Diagnosed major depressive disorder with 29% whole person impairment; imposed no work restrictions.

Psychiatric evaluation relevant to disability but no work restrictions imposed.

From the decision · page 4Applicant was also evaluated by psychologist Ludmila Zeltzer, PsyD. Dr. Zeltzer

LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234; Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1042; Nunes v. State of California (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, 894 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

A permanent disability rating may be rebutted by showing an applicant's diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the scheduled rating, requiring vocational expert evidence that is substantial and based on medical work restrictions.

The Board found that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence because it included work restrictions beyond those medically supported, thus the permanent total disability finding was not supported.

From the decision · page 6capacity is greater than reflected in the employee's scheduled rating. This is the rule expressed in LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [193 Cal. Rptr. 547, 666 P.2d 989]. In LeBoeuf, an injured worker sought to demonstrate that, due to the residual effects of his work-related injuries, he could not be retrained for suitable meaningful employment. (Id. at pp. 237-238.) Our Supreme Court concluded that it was error to preclude LeBoeuf from making such a showing, and held that "the fact that an injured employee is precluded from the option of receiving rehabilitation benefits should also be taken into account in the assessment of an injured employee's permanent disability rating."

Vocational expert's opinion included work restrictions not supported by medical evidence, such as chronic pain and psychiatric limitations beyond medical work restrictions.