What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant and denied by the Appeals Board on September 23, 2025, after review of the WCJ's July 2, 2025 Findings of Fact, Award and Orders.
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 Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Sean Robinson, provided substantial medical evidence supporting a 60% industrial apportionment and 40% non-industrial apportionment based on detailed examination, history, and medical records, which the Appeals Board found legally valid and supported the denial of reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab. Code, § 4663) and may be attributed to pathology, asymptomatic prior conditions, and retroactive prophylactic work preclusions, provided there is substantial medical evidence establishing that these other factors have caused permanent disability. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687] citing Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra, at 612.) Permanent disability must be apportioned in accordance with substantial medical evidence. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman) (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1137 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 751])
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Sean Robinson's medical opinion apportioned 60% of the permanent disability to the industrial injury and 40% to non-industrial factors such as osteoarthritis, genetics, and everyday life activities.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This opinion was detailed, based on examination, history, and medical records, and was found to be substantial medical evidence supporting the apportionment finding, leading to denial of reconsideration.
From the decision · page 4Here, Sean Robinson, M.D., the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, opined that 60% of applicant's permanent disability is due to the industrial injury and that 40% is due to non-industrial factors such as everyday life and genetics. (Joint Exhibit 2, Dr. Robinson's report dated June 25, 2024. P. 22,) He explained in his deposition:
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 that 60% of applicant's permanent disability is due to the industrial injury and 40% is due to non-industrial factors such as everyday life and genetics, based on examination, history, and medical records including MRI showing severe osteoarthritis.
Dr. Robinson explained the basis for his apportionment opinion in his deposition, detailing how the industrial injury and preexisting osteoarthritis contributed to the disability.
From the decision · page 4Here, Sean Robinson, M.D., the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, opined that 60% of applicant's permanent disability is due to the industrial injury and that 40% is due to non-industrial factors such as everyday life and genetics. (Joint Exhibit 2, Dr. Robinson's report dated June 25, 2024. P. 22,) He explained in his deposition:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 4663; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc); Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922; Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman) (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1137
Defendant has the burden of proof on apportionment; apportionment must be based on causation and supported by substantial medical evidence framed in reasonable medical probability, not speculative, and with detailed reasoning.
The Appeals Board applied these standards to evaluate Dr. Robinson's apportionment opinion and found it to be substantial medical evidence supporting the 60/40 apportionment.
From the decision · page 3Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab. Code, § 4663) and may be attributed to pathology, asymptomatic prior conditions, and retroactive prophylactic work preclusions, provided there is substantial medical evidence establishing that these other factors have caused permanent disability. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687] citing Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra, at 612.) Permanent disability must be apportioned in accordance with substantial medical evidence. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman) (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1137 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 751])
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Robinson's detailed medical examination, history taking, and review of MRI and medical records
From the decision · page 5A. That's correct. (Joint Exhibit 3, Deposition of Dr. Robinson, pp. 11:22-12:9.) Dr. Robinson based his opinion on applicant's preexisting osteoarthritis on a MRI dated November 15, 2022, which states, "Osteoarticular: Severe arthrosis with large areas of full- thickness cartilage loss over the femoral condyle and tibial plateau, with associated subchondral sclerosis and edema. Prominent marginal and central osteophyte formation.... IMPRESSION:... severe lateral tibiofemoral osteoarthritis..." (Joint Exhibit 1, Dr. Robinson's report dated February 21, 2024, p. 21.) Dr. Robinson explained:
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.