ADJ19939689 · July 20, 2026

Dr. Feingold's apportionment opinions were rejected as substantial evidence because he apportioned impairment rather than disability, and failed to explain how non-industrial arthritis caused disability. The WCAB found no legal basis for apportionment.

From the decision · page 6Therefore, defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra at pp. 611, 620-621.) To constitute substantial evidence “…a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Id. at 621.) Causation of disability is not to be confused with causation of injury. (Id. at 611.) Dr. Feingold’s apportionment opinions do not constitute substantial evidence because he does not address the causation of applicant’s disability, instead Dr. Feingold apportioned the applicant’s “impairment.” Evaluating physicians determine the extent of an applicant’s impairment using the AMA Guides, this is a medical determination. Then, the assigned impairment is rated or adjusted for the applicant’s diminished future earning capacity, occupation and age at the time of injury resulting in a level of permanent disability, this is a non-medical determination to account for an applicant’s inability to compete in the open labor market. (Lab.

The WCAB credited applicant's credible and unrefuted testimony about his physically demanding duties, finding occupational group number 460 appropriate rather than defendant's proposed 250 or applicant's claimed 351.

From the decision · page 8He is a transportation supervisor. At the time of the injury, he was the only person working in the entire department. This kept him constantly running, driving, loading people in wheelchairs, doing a lot of bending, twisting, and physical exertion. He even had to lift persons into dental chairs. He drove a 20-passenger bus with people and had to load and unload them and their walkers, wheelchairs, and other assist[ive] devices as well. He lifted every day. The heaviest thing he lifted would have been a person weighing approximately 250 pounds. (Minutes of Hearing, April 8, 2026, at p. 4:7-14.) The PWCJ determined that applicant’s testimony about his work duties was credible. (Opinion on Decision, April 29, 2026, at p. 5.) Further, as noted by the PWCJ, the applicant’s testimony about his work duties was unrefuted by any documentary evidence or witness testimony from defendant. (Report, at p.

The WCAB adopted the PWCJ's finding of 36% permanent disability with no apportionment based on credible testimony and medical reporting by Dr. Feingold.

Dr. Feingold apportioned impairment rather than disability and failed to explain how non-industrial arthritis caused disability.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This led the WCAB to reject his apportionment opinions as substantial evidence and find no legal basis for apportionment.

From the decision · page 6Therefore, defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra at pp. 611, 620-621.) To constitute substantial evidence “…a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Id. at 621.) Causation of disability is not to be confused with causation of injury. (Id. at 611.) Dr. Feingold’s apportionment opinions do not constitute substantial evidence because he does not address the causation of applicant’s disability, instead Dr. Feingold apportioned the applicant’s “impairment.” Evaluating physicians determine the extent of an applicant’s impairment using the AMA Guides, this is a medical determination. Then, the assigned impairment is rated or adjusted for the applicant’s diminished future earning capacity, occupation and age at the time of injury resulting in a level of permanent disability, this is a non-medical determination to account for an applicant’s inability to compete in the open labor market. (Lab.

Applicant's credible and unrefuted testimony about physically demanding job duties including lifting up to 250 pounds.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the finding that occupational group number 460 was appropriate, reflecting the arduous nature of the work.

From the decision · page 8He is a transportation supervisor. At the time of the injury, he was the only person working in the entire department. This kept him constantly running, driving, loading people in wheelchairs, doing a lot of bending, twisting, and physical exertion. He even had to lift persons into dental chairs. He drove a 20-passenger bus with people and had to load and unload them and their walkers, wheelchairs, and other assist[ive] devices as well. He lifted every day. The heaviest thing he lifted would have been a person weighing approximately 250 pounds. (Minutes of Hearing, April 8, 2026, at p. 4:7-14.) The PWCJ determined that applicant’s testimony about his work duties was credible. (Opinion on Decision, April 29, 2026, at p. 5.) Further, as noted by the PWCJ, the applicant’s testimony about his work duties was unrefuted by any documentary evidence or witness testimony from defendant. (Report, at p.

Diagnosed left knee arthritis, status post total knee arthroplasty; opined repetitive employment activities aggravated pre-existing arthritis; initially apportioned impairment as 20% industrial and 80% non-industrial, later revised to 50% each; did not properly address causation of disability for apportionment.

Dr. Feingold apportioned impairment rather than disability and failed to explain how non-industrial arthritis caused disability, so his apportionment opinions were rejected as substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 6Therefore, defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra at pp. 611, 620-621.) To constitute substantial evidence “…a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Id. at 621.) Causation of disability is not to be confused with causation of injury. (Id. at 611.) Dr. Feingold’s apportionment opinions do not constitute substantial evidence because he does not address the causation of applicant’s disability, instead Dr. Feingold apportioned the applicant’s “impairment.” Evaluating physicians determine the extent of an applicant’s impairment using the AMA Guides, this is a medical determination. Then, the assigned impairment is rated or adjusted for the applicant’s diminished future earning capacity, occupation and age at the time of injury resulting in a level of permanent disability, this is a non-medical determination to account for an applicant’s inability to compete in the open labor market. (Lab.

Lab. Code, § 4663(c); Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604; Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (Nunes I), (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741

Apportionment must be based on causation of disability, not impairment, and must be supported by substantial evidence including reasonable medical probability and explanation of causation.

The WCAB rejected Dr. Feingold's apportionment opinions because he apportioned impairment rather than disability and failed to explain causation of disability, thus no legal basis for apportionment was found.

From the decision · page 6Therefore, defendant carries the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) Apportionment of permanent disability must address causation of disability and must constitute substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra at pp. 611, 620-621.) To constitute substantial evidence “…a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Id. at 621.) Causation of disability is not to be confused with causation of injury. (Id. at 611.) Dr. Feingold’s apportionment opinions do not constitute substantial evidence because he does not address the causation of applicant’s disability, instead Dr. Feingold apportioned the applicant’s “impairment.” Evaluating physicians determine the extent of an applicant’s impairment using the AMA Guides, this is a medical determination. Then, the assigned impairment is rated or adjusted for the applicant’s diminished future earning capacity, occupation and age at the time of injury resulting in a level of permanent disability, this is a non-medical determination to account for an applicant’s inability to compete in the open labor market. (Lab.

Lab. Code, § 4660.1; Holt v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1257

Occupational group number is a question of fact determined by the trier of fact based on credible evidence of job duties, and the employee is entitled to the highest occupational group number supported by evidence.

The WCAB credited applicant's credible testimony about his physically demanding duties and found occupational group number 460 appropriate.

From the decision · page 8He is a transportation supervisor. At the time of the injury, he was the only person working in the entire department. This kept him constantly running, driving, loading people in wheelchairs, doing a lot of bending, twisting, and physical exertion. He even had to lift persons into dental chairs. He drove a 20-passenger bus with people and had to load and unload them and their walkers, wheelchairs, and other assist[ive] devices as well. He lifted every day. The heaviest thing he lifted would have been a person weighing approximately 250 pounds. (Minutes of Hearing, April 8, 2026, at p. 4:7-14.) The PWCJ determined that applicant’s testimony about his work duties was credible. (Opinion on Decision, April 29, 2026, at p. 5.) Further, as noted by the PWCJ, the applicant’s testimony about his work duties was unrefuted by any documentary evidence or witness testimony from defendant. (Report, at p.

Lab. Code, § 4660; 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

Permanent disability rating is based on impairment adjusted for diminished future earning capacity, occupation, and age, using the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.

The WCAB adopted the PWCJ's finding of 36% permanent disability with no apportionment based on credible testimony and medical reporting by Dr. Feingold.

Applicant's credible and unrefuted testimony about his physically demanding job duties, including lifting up to 250 pounds and assisting disabled patients, supported the occupational group number finding.

From the decision · page 8He is a transportation supervisor. At the time of the injury, he was the only person working in the entire department. This kept him constantly running, driving, loading people in wheelchairs, doing a lot of bending, twisting, and physical exertion. He even had to lift persons into dental chairs. He drove a 20-passenger bus with people and had to load and unload them and their walkers, wheelchairs, and other assist[ive] devices as well. He lifted every day. The heaviest thing he lifted would have been a person weighing approximately 250 pounds. (Minutes of Hearing, April 8, 2026, at p. 4:7-14.) The PWCJ determined that applicant’s testimony about his work duties was credible. (Opinion on Decision, April 29, 2026, at p. 5.) Further, as noted by the PWCJ, the applicant’s testimony about his work duties was unrefuted by any documentary evidence or witness testimony from defendant. (Report, at p.