Kite — combining impairments

How later panels applied it

Newest released decisions whose legal-standard extraction named this holding. Each quotes the passage and links to the official PDF. The leading case is cited the way courts cite it; our own cards stay ADJ, date, and issue. Litigated tail — not a win rate.

• ADJ8492544 · 2026-09-29 · Salinas District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.7Mahmoudi has opined that the resulting impairments should be added, rather than combined using the CVC. (Petition, at p. 14:10.) The Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee’s permanent disability. (Lab. Code, §§ 4660, 4660.1; Ogilvie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274–1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624] (Ogilvie).) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are “generally” combined using the Combined Values Chart (CVC), which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1-10.) Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee’s whole person impairment so long as the physician’s opinion remains within the four corners of the AMA Guides. (Lab. Code, § 4660; Guzman, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at pp. 818–829.) Accordingly, the use of the multiple disabilities table is discretionary depending upon whether it produces a rating that fully compensates an applicant for the effects of his or her injury. (Mihesuah v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 720, 728 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 81, 87] (Mihesuah).)

  Applied to determine appropriate method for combining or adding impairment ratings.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ13514341 · 2026-09-01 · San Francisco District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) 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.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.

  The addition of impairments is permissible when a synergistic effect on ADLs is shown, as opposed to using the CVC.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.6III. Defendant further contends that applicant failed to satisfy the requirements outlined under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees. (Petition, p. 4.) Pursuant to section 4660.1, the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274-1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are "generally" combined using the CVC, which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1- 10.)Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee's whole person impairment so long as the physician's opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides.

  Applicant may rebut CVC by showing ADLs impacted and non-overlapping or amplifying effects.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ11850265 · 2026-04-28 · Salinas District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.4Thus, under the Guides, there is no hard and fast method for combining the disabilities, multiple methods have been legitimately used, based upon the extent to which they affect an individual's ability to perform activities of daily living; and the physician can apply his skills and judgment to decide which method most accurately reflects the overall impairment. In Athens Administrators v. WCAB (Kite) (2013) 78 CCC 213 the Board acknowledged this standard, agreeing that the Guides provision for applying the CVT is rebuttable, with the caveat that the physician must explain and justify the physician's choice of method.

  The Board relied on this precedent to uphold Dr. Stone's additive method as justified and supported by substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ18574715 · 2026-04-10 · Santa Rosa District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.4Under Kite, impairments may be added if substantial medical evidence supports a physician's opinion that adding impairments will result in a more accurate rating of the applicant's level of disability than the rating that results from the use of the CVC. (Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 213.) Specifically, in Kite, the QME recommended the addition of the separate ratings for the right and left hips as the best way to combine impairments, rather than using the Combined Values Chart (CVC), which would reduce the overall rating. The QME went on to state that there was a "synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus body parts from different regions of the body" that warranted addition rather than combining under the CVC.

  Applied to support addition of impairments for different body parts when ADLs do not overlap.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.10Moreover, pursuant to Fitzpatrick, supra, impairments "are generally combined" using the combined values chart (CVC) found in the permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS). However, the "scheduled rating is not absolute" and other methodologies may be used to calculate permanent disability. (Id. at p. 614.) Thus, while the PDRS is prima facie evidence of an employee's permanent disability, it is rebuttable. (Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School Dist. (Almaraz-Guzman II) (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, 1106 (Appeals Board en banc); see Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (Appeals Board en banc); City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cannon) (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1360, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1.) Ultimately, however, the goal in rating impairments is accuracy. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman III) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].)

  Applied to support addition of impairments rather than CVC in this case.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ16389400 · 2026-03-03 · San Bernardino District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.3In the intervening time, the [Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)] issued an en banc decision explaining the evidence necessary to support rebuttal of the [Combined Values Chart (CVC)] pursuant to Kite. Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 CCC 686, 689-690. The WCAB held that the CVC in the permanent disability ratings schedule (PDRS) can be rebutted and impairments may be added when an applicant establishes the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs) and that either: (1) There is no overlap between the effects on ADLs for the body parts rated. Or (2) There is overlap, but it increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Id.).

  The WCAB found the evidence supported adding impairments for both knees under Kite and Vigil.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12781361 · 2026-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeKite

  Determinative passage · p.6In Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), the Appeals Board held that if there is substantial medical evidence that two or more impairments have a synergistic effect which causes the resulting impairment to be greater

  Applied to justify adding impairments rather than combining

  Official decision · page 6 →