What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on September 24, 2025, challenging the failure to find non-industrial apportionment of disability.
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.
ApportionmentApplicant prevailedcervical spine · lumbar spine
The WCJ and WCAB found that the AME's apportionment opinion lacked substantial medical evidence as it did not meet the required criteria of reasonable medical probability, adequate explanation, and was speculative and unclear.
From the decision · page 5Here, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report, we agree with the WCJ that the opinion of AME Dr. Heskiaoff on the issue of apportionment does not constitute substantial medical evidence. "[T]he mere fact that a report `addresses' the issue of causation of the permanent disability and makes an `apportionment determination' by finding the approximate relative percentages of industrial and non-industrial causation does not necessarily render the report one upon which the WCAB may rely." (Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620.)