Applicant has multiple industrial injuries with cumulative effects causing significant disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established the basis for permanent total disability finding due to combined injuries.
From the decision · page 2Applicant suffered a prior industrial injury on November 8, 1995,
(ADJ2130054) to his left shoulder which was resolved by a stipulated award for
permanent disability of 14.5% and was not at issue in this case. Applicant tripped
and fell on April 27, 1999, injuring his neck, left arm, left hand, right hand and
left shoulder (ADJ4055925). Applicant tripped and fell again on May 29, 2000,
injuring his head and right hand (ADJ728821). Applicant fell again on
October 3, 2000, injuring his right hand and right knee (ADJ2475719). On
October 26, 2001, Applicant tripped and fell again injuring his bilateral hands,
right wrist, left ring finger, left little finger, back, neck and headaches
(ADJ207659). On February 4, 2003, applicant was injured when a chair he sat
in collapsed injuring his neck, back, headaches, right arm and right shoulder
(ADJ3052880). Applicant sustained a cumulative trauma through May 4, 2007,
injuring his bilateral wrists, bilateral hands, neck, back and erectile dysfunction
(ADJ3317169).
AME Dr. Feinberg assigned significant work restrictions limiting applicant to sedentary activities and use of assistive devices.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These medical restrictions supported the finding of permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 3In terms of work status, he could not go back to his former job duties. From my
perspective he could not reengage in the open labor market but the final decision
in this regard would need input from a forensic psychiatrist and vocational
specialist. Subjective factors of disability could be described as slight to
moderate pain becoming severe with substantial work activities. Objective
factors of disability included abnormal radiographs, loss of range of motion,
atrophy and decreased strength. He described bowel and bladder dysfunction.
Both vocational experts agreed applicant was not amenable to rehabilitation and had complete loss of earning capacity.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Vocational evidence confirmed the total loss of earning capacity due to industrial injury.
From the decision · page 4expert. Mr. O'Keefe evaluated applicant and authored two reports in evidence. (Applicant's
Exhibits 21 and 23.) Defendant retained Steven Koobatian, Ph.D. as its expert who authored four
reports in evidence. (Applicant's Exhibit 22; Defendant's Exhibits NN-PP.) Both vocational
experts agreed that applicant was not amenable to rehabilitation due to the industrial injury and
suffered from a complete loss of earning capacity. (Defendant's Exhibit PP, Report of
Steven Koobatian, Ph.D., November 30, 2020, p. 2.)
Defendant failed to present medical evidence to prove apportionment of disability to non-industrial causes.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Lack of medical evidence on apportionment led to no apportionment of disability.
From the decision · page 7When applicant's disability is based upon work restriction(s), to prove apportionment
defendant must prove that the work restriction(s) are attributable to non-industrial causes. No such
evidence exists in this case, and thus, applicant's disability is not apportioned.