What the panel ordered
The Board denied Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and affirmed the finding that Applicant sustained an industrial injury causing permanent total (100%) disability.
Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the Board's Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, which was denied by the Board on October 16, 2023.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 12, 2023.
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 applicant successfully rebutted the scheduled permanent partial disability rating of 45% by showing through vocational expert evidence that she was unable to work or be vocationally rehabilitated, thus warranting a finding of permanent total (100%) disability. The Board rejected the defendant's apportionment argument due to lack of detailed explanation in the medical opinion and the WCJ's prior rejection of apportionment.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant introduced vocational expert evidence showing she was unable to work or be vocationally rehabilitated
Favours Applicant prevailed
This evidence was persuasive and led the Board to find permanent total disability, rebutting the scheduled partial disability rating
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
Dr. Grossman's apportionment opinion lacked detailed explanation and was rejected by the WCJ
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board rejected apportionment due to insufficient reasoning, supporting the finding of permanent total disability
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
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.
Opined a 30% whole person impairment based on range of motion method; work restrictions included limitation to sedentary work no greater than 4 hours per 8 hour day; precluded from lifting more than 5 pounds, standing more than 15 minutes, sitting more than 30 minutes without breaks, and any bending, stooping, or twisting; noted constant moderate low back pain increasing to occasional severe pain; opined that pre-existing degenerative abnormalities were asymptomatic and did not require treatment until the industrial injury.
Dr. Grossman's apportionment opinion lacked detailed explanation and was rejected by the WCJ; his work restrictions were attributed solely to the industrial injury.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 617 [Appeals Bd. en banc]
Applied to reject Dr. Grossman's apportionment opinion for lack of detailed explanation
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624]; LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 587]
Rebuttal of scheduled rating is shown when injury impairs rehabilitation and diminishes future earning capacity beyond the scheduled rating (Ogilvie v. WCAB, LeBoeuf v. WCAB)
Applied to find applicant rebutted scheduled rating by showing unemployability and lack of vocational rehabilitation
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Vocational expert evidence showing applicant was unable to work or be vocationally rehabilitated
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
Dr. Grossman's medical opinion on apportionment lacked detailed reasoning and was rejected
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of our Decision After Reconsideration of May 12, 2023, wherein we found that while employed on August 21, 2019 as a medical records director, applicant sustained industrial injury to her back causing permanent total (100%) disability. In so finding, we amended a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of February 21, 2023, wherein it was found that applicant's injury caused permanent partial disability of 45%. At trial applicant introduced vocational expert evidence standing for the proposition that applicant was unable to work, and had thus rebutted the scheduled permanent disability, and should be found permanently totally (100% disabled). This evidence was rejected by the WCJ, but was the basis for our May 12, 2023 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration.
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.