What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted limited to amending the permanent disability rating to 73% with corresponding changes to attorney's fees; otherwise, the Findings and Award of October 6, 2025, affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on October 6, 2025, challenging the medical evidence and permanent disability rating; the WCAB granted reconsideration limited to correcting the permanent disability rating from 78% to 73%, affirming the rest of the Findings and Award.
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 and WCAB found substantial medical evidence from Dr. Morello supporting injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and right shoulder.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued on October 6, 2025 wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) held, in relevant part, that while employed by defendant as a janitor on July 24, 2020, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the lumbar spine and right shoulder resulting in a 78% permanent disability, plus a life pension thereafter, per the opinions of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Nathan Morello, D.C.
The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's use of the addition method over the combined values chart for rating impairments due to synergistic effects on ADLs, but corrected the overall permanent disability rating from 78% to 73%.
From the decision · page 9Accordingly, we grant defendant's Petition for the limited purpose of amending the permanent disability to reflect a 73% rather than 78% permanent disability with corresponding changes to attorney's fees, but otherwise affirm the WCJ's F&A.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Morello's medical opinions were based on extensive medical records, examinations, and history, providing substantial evidence of injury and impairment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the finding of injury AOE/COE and permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 6(Escobedo, supra, at p. 621.) Here, Dr. Morello opined that "within reasonable medical probability" applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and right shoulder resulting in a 13% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE lumbar category III and a 9% WPI to the right shoulder under the range of motion (ROM) method. (Exhibit 3, pp. 20, 22.) He outlined various studies, including an April 18, 2022 EMG, and an April 8, 2022 lumbar MRI, which confirmed bilateral radicular pain at the L5-S1 regions and a history of a herniated disc. (Id. at p. 22.) He noted also that applicant qualified "for the higher DRE rating due to the impact" of the injury on applicant's ability "to perform activities of daily living [ADLs]." (Ibid.) Further clarification regarding the specific ADLs affected were provided during a June 6, 2024 deposition. (Exhibit 9, pp. 21:2-22:24.) With respect to the right shoulder, Dr.
Applicant's reported difficulties with specific ADLs due to lumbar and right shoulder impairments.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the use of the addition method over the combined values chart for impairment rating.
From the decision · page 8Here, Dr. Morello outlined a number of ADLs affected by applicant's lumbar and right shoulder impairments, including: difficulty with using the restroom and cleaning herself afterwards, washing her feet and back, trimming toenails, putting on clothing, socks, and shoes, combing her hair, lifting, carrying, walking on flat or uneven ground or surfaces, standing, sitting, climbing stairs or ladders, running, crawling, squatting, kneeling, and twisting or bending at the waist. (Exhibit 9, pp. 21:20-22:4.) Regarding the right arm specifically, applicant noted difficulties with balancing, reaching, working at heights, doing shoulder level work, pushing, pulling, opening jars, lifting heavy pots and pans, cleaning windows and mirrors, mopping, sweeping, vacuuming, scrubbing, riding in a car for longer than 30 minutes, and sleeping on the right side. (Id. at p. 22:4- 18.)
WCJ's error in rating lumbar spine impairments was corrected to reduce permanent disability rating from 78% to 73%.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Resulted in amendment of permanent disability rating and attorney's fees.
From the decision · page 9Lastly, defendant contends that the WCJ incorrectly rated the lumbar spine by adding the various ROM/pain add-on, sensory, and motor loss impairments and rating them in one string rather than separating them into three separate rating strings, combining them, then adding that figure to the final figure for the right shoulder. (Petition, p. 23.) The WCJ concedes that she made an error in rating the lumbar spine and agrees that the final rating should reflect a 73% rather than 78% permanent disability based upon defendant's method.
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 injury AOE/COE to lumbar spine and right shoulder with 13% WPI lumbar spine and 9% WPI right shoulder; no non-industrial apportionment; recommended addition method for impairments due to synergistic effect on ADLs.
Based on extensive medical records, examinations, and history; found no non-industrial apportionment; supported addition method for rating impairments.
From the decision · page 2On January 8, 2024, Dr. Morello issued a medical report wherein he found that applicant reached permanent and stationary status with a resulting 13% whole person impairment (WPI) to the lumbar spine under DRE category III and 9% WPI to the right shoulder due to decreased range of motion. (Exhibit 3, pp. 21-22.) With respect to apportionment, he opined that "[i]n reviewing the history, records provided[,] and evaluation of the patient[,]" he saw "no indication for [non-
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code Section 4660; Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686
Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) and Combined Values Chart (CVC) rebuttal requirements
Applicant must establish impact on ADLs and non-overlapping or amplifying overlap to rebut CVC and use addition method for rating impairments.
From the decision · page 7Defendant further contends that applicant failed to rebut the CVC and erroneously applied the addition method for rating impairments. (Petition, p. 22.) Pursuant to section 4660.1, the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274-1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are "generally" combined using the CVC, which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1-10.)Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee's whole person impairment so long as the physician's opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides. (Lab. Code, § 4660; Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 818-829 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].)Accordingly, the use of the multiple disabilities table is discretionary depending upon whether it produces a rating that fully compensates an applicant for the effects of his or her injury. (Mihesuah v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 720, 728 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 81, 87].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Detailed medical reports and deposition testimony of Dr. Morello supporting injury and impairment ratings
From the decision · page 6(Escobedo, supra, at p. 621.) Here, Dr. Morello opined that "within reasonable medical probability" applicant sustained an injury AOE/COE to the lumbar spine and right shoulder resulting in a 13% WPI to the lumbar spine under DRE lumbar category III and a 9% WPI to the right shoulder under the range of motion (ROM) method. (Exhibit 3, pp. 20, 22.) He outlined various studies, including an April 18, 2022 EMG, and an April 8, 2022 lumbar MRI, which confirmed bilateral radicular pain at the L5-S1 regions and a history of a herniated disc. (Id. at p. 22.) He noted also that applicant qualified "for the higher DRE rating due to the impact" of the injury on applicant's ability "to perform activities of daily living [ADLs]." (Ibid.) Further clarification regarding the specific ADLs affected were provided during a June 6, 2024 deposition. (Exhibit 9, pp. 21:2-22:24.) With respect to the right shoulder, Dr.
Applicant's reported difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) due to lumbar and right shoulder impairments
From the decision · page 8Here, Dr. Morello outlined a number of ADLs affected by applicant's lumbar and right shoulder impairments, including: difficulty with using the restroom and cleaning herself afterwards, washing her feet and back, trimming toenails, putting on clothing, socks, and shoes, combing her hair, lifting, carrying, walking on flat or uneven ground or surfaces, standing, sitting, climbing stairs or ladders, running, crawling, squatting, kneeling, and twisting or bending at the waist. (Exhibit 9, pp. 21:20-22:4.) Regarding the right arm specifically, applicant noted difficulties with balancing, reaching, working at heights, doing shoulder level work, pushing, pulling, opening jars, lifting heavy pots and pans, cleaning windows and mirrors, mopping, sweeping, vacuuming, scrubbing, riding in a car for longer than 30 minutes, and sleeping on the right side. (Id. at p. 22:4- 18.)
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.