What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's decision amended to defer apportionment issue until permanent disability is determined.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award of January 24, 2024, which found industrial injury to irritable bowel syndrome but deferred permanent disability and apportionment issues.
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 the apportionment determination premature because permanent disability had not yet been determined, so the issue was deferred.
From the decision · page 1We will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of apportionment, since any findings regarding apportionment are premature prior to any findings regarding the permanent impairment to be apportioned. Labor Code section 4663 states, "A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No final determination of permanent disability had been made at the time of the apportionment opinion.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board found apportionment premature without a permanent disability determination, leading to deferral of the issue.
From the decision · page 1We will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of apportionment, since any findings regarding apportionment are premature prior to any findings regarding the permanent impairment to be apportioned. Labor Code section 4663 states, "A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was
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.
Provided an apportionment opinion on the applicant's irritable bowel syndrome permanent impairment, which was found to be premature and deferred by the Board.
The Board found the apportionment opinion premature as permanent disability was not yet determined.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of January 24, 2024, wherein it was found that, while employed during a cumulative period ending November 8, 2019, applicant sustained industrial injury in the form of irritable bowel syndrome but did not sustain compensable industrial injury to the psyche. Although permanent disability was not placed at issue or decided upon, there was a finding that, "The apportionment opinion on QME [internist] Dr. Chang-Sing constitutes substantial medical evidence."
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 4663
Apportionment determination requires a finding of permanent disability before apportionment can be properly determined.
From the decision · page 1We will grant reconsideration and amend the WCJ's decision to defer the issue of apportionment, since any findings regarding apportionment are premature prior to any findings regarding the permanent impairment to be apportioned. Labor Code section 4663 states, "A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was
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.