ADJ15295325 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ's decision amended to award 48% permanent disability without apportionment.

Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Award of March 12, 2026, regarding permanent disability and apportionment.

Read the official decision →

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.

Permanent disability ratingApplicant prevailedneck

The Board found that the applicant did not rebut the scheduled rating but that the apportionment evidence by Dr. Karvelas was not substantial medical evidence, thus granting an unapportioned 48% permanent disability award.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award of March 12, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as a correctional officer during a cumulative period ending on June 19, 2021, applicant sustained industrial injury to the neck causing permanent disability of 40% after apportionment. In finding permanent disability of 40%, it was determined that applicant did not prove that she was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and did not prove that she was unable to compete in the open labor market. Additionally, it was found that, pursuant to the apportionment determination of qualified medical evaluator, physical medicine specialist Brian Karvelas, M.D., that 20 percent of applicant's permanent disability was caused by factors other than the industrial injury. Therefore, applicant's overall 48% permanent disability was apportioned, and it was found that applicant was entitled to an award of 40% compensable permanent disability.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Karvelas did not explain how nonindustrial pathology contributed to the impairment rating.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This lack of explanation led the Board to reject his apportionment opinion as not substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 7Karvelas does not explain how the nonindustrial pathology is contributing to applicant's impairment rating. It is insufficient to mention that pathology affects the same area of the body of the industrial injury or that a certain percentage of a generalized condition is attributable to non- industrial factors. In order to constitute valid apportionment, a reporting physician must explain how these factors are contributing to permanent disability. Dr. Karvelas does not do so here. Additionally, while we acknowledge that determining the level of apportionment is not an exact science and "[a]rriving at a decision on the exact degree of disability is a difficult task under the most favorable circumstances. It necessarily involves some measure of conjecture and compromise...." (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Serafin) (1948) 33 Cal.2d 89, 93 [13 Cal.Comp.Cases 267]), there must be some attempt at explaining the percentages of apportionment decided upon, not just the existence of non-industrial factors. Here, Dr. Karvelas does not explain how he arrived at 20% non-industrial apportionment. For these reasons we find that Dr. Karvelas's apportionment discussion did not constitute substantial medical evidence, and that defendant did not carry its burden of proving apportionment. We therefore find applicant entitled to an unapportioned award of 48% permanent disability.

Applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and was not completely shut out of the labor market.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the Board's affirmation of the scheduled rating and rejection of applicant's claim to rebut it.

From the decision · page 7However, we affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and that she was not completely shut out of the labor market for the reasons stated in the Report, which we quote below:

ADJ15295325 · June 15, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page