What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted solely to amend the occupational group number to 360 in Finding of Fact No. 1; otherwise, the May 24, 2022 Joint Findings of Fact and Order is affirmed.
Applicant, in pro per, petitioned for reconsideration of the May 24, 2022 Joint Findings of Fact and Order. The WCAB granted reconsideration to amend the occupational group number finding, otherwise affirming the decision.
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 parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and the Board found applicant entitled to the higher group number for the cumulative trauma period as well.
From the decision · page 3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Parties stipulated that applicant's occupational variant for the specific injury on October 4, 2011 was 360, and this was not disputed.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board found the stipulation binding and applied the higher group number to the cumulative trauma period as well.
From the decision · page 3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Dalen v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 497, 503-504; National Kinney v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 203, 213-214
An employee who performs duties of two occupations is entitled to a rating based on the occupation carrying the higher percentage of disability, where there is evidence that the employee did actually perform duties required of the more arduous occupation.
Applied to find applicant entitled to the higher group number (360) for the cumulative trauma period.
From the decision · page 3Cal.App.3d 1257, 1260 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 576].) As held in Dalen v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 497, 503-504 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 393] and National Kinney v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 203, 213-214 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 1266], an employee who performs duties of two occupations is entitled to a rating based on the occupation carrying the higher percentage of disability, where there is evidence that the employee did actually perform duties required of the more arduous occupation.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Parties stipulated to occupational group number 360 for the specific injury on October 4, 2011, and this was not disputed.
From the decision · page 3Here, applicant was employed as a laborer on October 4, 2011, and defendant stipulated to that applicant was employed on that date and that his occupational variant was 360. Stipulations are binding on the parties unless, on a showing of good cause, the parties are given permission to withdraw from their agreements. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10835; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1].) The stipulation that applicant's occupational variant is 360 has not been disputed. As applicant's specific injury occurred on October 4, 2011, and his cumulative trauma injury began on October 4, 2011, applicant is entitled to the higher group number. We note that the assignment of the higher occupational group does not change the recommended permanent disability rating.
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.