What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration which was denied by the WCAB panel.
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.
A reasonable attorney fee was found to be 15% of the permanent disability award.
From the decision · page 6Based on the California Code of Regulations section 10844 and the guidelines for awarding attorney fees found in the Policy and Procedural Manual, it is found that a reasonable attorney fee is 15% of the permanent disability.
The record supports a finding that Applicant became permanent and stationary on February 15, 2018 based on Dr. Isono's reports and the absence of evidence to the contrary.
From the decision · page 4PERMANENT AND STATIONARY DATE Applicant claims she reached permanent and stationary status on February 15, 2018 and Defendant contends it happened on January 7, 2020.
Applicant is entitled to a 15% increase in permanent disability unless the employer has fewer than 50 employees, which requires further development.
From the decision · page 5An injured employee is entitled to an increase in permanent disability by 15% after the first 60 days, if the injury causes permanent disability and the employer fails to make an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work, and the employer has at least 50 employees. Labor Code section 4658(d).
Dr. Isono's detailed impairment ratings and apportionment findings were accepted, supporting a 51% permanent disability award.
From the decision · page 4The factors of permanent disability are based upon the reports of Dr. Isono. The basis for apportionment must be clear; the medical-legal report must "describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability, and set forth the basis for the opinion." Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621 (en banc).
Applicant is entitled to the supplemental job displacement voucher as there was no offer of return to work and permanent partial disability was established.
From the decision · page 6An injured employee is entitled to a supplemental job displacement benefit if the injury causes permanent partial disability and the employer fails to make an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work. Labor Code section 4658.7(b).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant became permanent and stationary on February 15, 2018 based on Dr. Isono's reports and lack of contrary evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact established the date for permanent disability and related benefits.
From the decision · page 4PERMANENT AND STATIONARY DATE Applicant claims she reached permanent and stationary status on February 15, 2018 and Defendant contends it happened on January 7, 2020.
Dr. Isono's impairment ratings and apportionment findings supported a 51% permanent disability award.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These findings formed the basis for the permanent disability award.
From the decision · page 4For the left knee, Dr. Isono provided impairment based on the strict rating. This would be 10% WPI for arthritis and 4% WPI for DRE partial medial and lateral meniscectomies. Then he used Almaraz/Guzman and found 17% WPI considering arthritis and DRE as well as an average of gait derangement, muscle atrophy, and muscle strength. Dr. Isono indicated this was the most accurate assessment of the total level of impairment. Dr. Isono reasoned that from a biomechanical and anatomic standpoint these impairments are interrelated but not subsumed by each other. Dr. Isono found apportionment and attributed 25% of the disability to preexisting degenerative joint disease and 75% to the industrial injury. Dr. Isono explained the degenerative joint disease was shown on the-rays in July 2014 and severe medial compartment degenerative joint disease was shown on the MRI in May 2015. Dr. Isono explained there was arthritis was in all three compartments and opined that degenerative joint disease is non-industrial condition related to aging. (Joint Exhibit DD)
Applicant is entitled to a 15% permanent disability increase unless employer has fewer than 50 employees, which requires further development.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact affects the calculation of the permanent disability award.
From the decision · page 5An injured employee is entitled to an increase in permanent disability by 15% after the first 60 days, if the injury causes permanent disability and the employer fails to make an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work, and the employer has at least 50 employees. Labor Code section 4658(d).
Applicant is entitled to the supplemental job displacement voucher due to permanent partial disability and no offer of return to work.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supports vocational rehabilitation benefits.
From the decision · page 6An injured employee is entitled to a supplemental job displacement benefit if the injury causes permanent partial disability and the employer fails to make an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work. Labor Code section 4658.7(b).
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.
Dr. Isono provided detailed impairment ratings and apportionment opinions for the left knee, right knee, lumbar spine, and right hip, supporting permanent disability findings.
Dr. Isono's reports were the basis for the permanent disability and apportionment findings.
From the decision · page 4In his report dated December 14, 2017, Dr. Isono opined Applicant had reached maximum medical improvement for the right knee on January 7, 2014, the lumbar spine on December 18, 2015, and the right hip on December 20, 2016. Dr. Isono further opined that Applicant had not reached maximum medical improvement for the left knee considering Applicant's desire to have a total knee replacement and the upcoming appointment with Dr. Greene. (Defendant Exhibit D)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621 (en banc)
The medical-legal report must describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability and set forth the basis for the opinion.
Applied to the apportionment findings of Dr. Isono.
From the decision · page 4The factors of permanent disability are based upon the reports of Dr. Isono. The basis for apportionment must be clear; the medical-legal report must "describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability, and set forth the basis for the opinion." Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621 (en banc).
Labor Code section 4658(d)
15% increase in permanent disability if employer fails to offer work and has at least 50 employees.
Applied to determine entitlement to permanent disability adjustment.
From the decision · page 5An injured employee is entitled to an increase in permanent disability by 15% after the first 60 days, if the injury causes permanent disability and the employer fails to make an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work, and the employer has at least 50 employees. Labor Code section 4658(d).
Labor Code section 4658.7(b)
Entitlement to supplemental job displacement voucher if injury causes permanent partial disability and no offer of work is made.
Applied to determine entitlement to supplemental job displacement voucher.
From the decision · page 6An injured employee is entitled to a supplemental job displacement benefit if the injury causes permanent partial disability and the employer fails to make an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work. Labor Code section 4658.7(b).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Isono's detailed medical reports and impairment ratings
From the decision · page 4For the left knee, Dr. Isono provided impairment based on the strict rating. This would be 10% WPI for arthritis and 4% WPI for DRE partial medial and lateral meniscectomies. Then he used Almaraz/Guzman and found 17% WPI considering arthritis and DRE as well as an average of gait derangement, muscle atrophy, and muscle strength. Dr. Isono indicated this was the most accurate assessment of the total level of impairment. Dr. Isono reasoned that from a biomechanical and anatomic standpoint these impairments are interrelated but not subsumed by each other. Dr. Isono found apportionment and attributed 25% of the disability to preexisting degenerative joint disease and 75% to the industrial injury. Dr. Isono explained the degenerative joint disease was shown on the-rays in July 2014 and severe medial compartment degenerative joint disease was shown on the MRI in May 2015. Dr. Isono explained there was arthritis was in all three compartments and opined that degenerative joint disease is non-industrial condition related to aging. (Joint Exhibit DD)
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.