Leading citation
LeBoeuf v. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234
What this holding is
LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 is the usual citation when permanent total disability is proved by an inability to compete on the open labor market rather than by a 100 percent schedule rating. Ogilvie and Nunes are the later chapters of that line. These are later applications, not a case-value estimate.
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.
- ADJ10598932 · 2026-09-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.8Another way the cases have long recognized that a scheduled rating has been effectively rebutted is when the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee’s diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee’s scheduled rating. This is the rule expressed in LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 234 [193 Cal.Rptr. 547, 666 P.2d 989]. In LeBoeuf, an injured worker sought to demonstrate that, due to the residual effects of his work-related injuries, he could not be retrained for suitable meaningful employment. (Id. at pp. 237-238.) Our Supreme Court concluded that it was error to preclude LeBoeuf from making such a showing, and held that “the fact that an injured employee is precluded from the option of receiving rehabilitation benefits should also be taken into account in the assessment of an injured employee’s permanent disability rating.”
Cited by Applicant to argue for higher permanent disability rating due to vocational non-amenability.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ19686963 · 2026-09-21 · Redding District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.9Richman to put forth opinions without full consideration or explanation because he considered the issue of disability settled. Thus, without further clarification PQME Dr. Richman’s opinions are not substantial. Turning to the vocational opinions we observe: Another way the cases have long recognized that a scheduled rating has been effectively rebutted is when the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee’s diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee’s scheduled rating. This is the rule expressed in LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [193 Cal. Rptr. 547, 666 P.2d 989].
Vocational expert must rely on medical work restrictions to assess rehabilitation feasibility.
Official decision · page 9 → - ADJ13491649 · 2026-07-31 · Lodi District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.5Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680] (Fitzpatrick); Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837] (Guzman).) However, the scheduled rating is not absolute. (Fitzpatrick, supra, at pp. 619-620.) A rating obtained pursuant to the PDRS may be rebutted by showing an applicant’s diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the PDRS. (Ogilvie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624] (Ogilvie); Contra Costa County v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dahl) (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 746 [80 Cal.Comp.Cases 1119] (Dahl).) In analyzing the issue of whether and how the PDRS could be rebutted, the Court of Appeal has observed:
Considered in evaluating applicant's claim for 100% total disability.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ10522919 · 2026-07-09 · Oakland District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.10P.D. LEXIS 322, *20–23.].) 3 In LeBoeuf, the Supreme Court applied a standard of labor market reality stating that, “A permanent disability rating should reflect as accurately as possible an injured employee’s diminished ability to compete in the open labor market. The fact that a worker has been precluded from vocational retraining is a significant factor to be taken into account in evaluating his or her potential employability.” (LeBouef, supra, 34 Cal.3d at pp. 245-246.) The Court concluded, “This is to ensure that the permanent disability rating upon which an award is based accurately reflects both the permanent medical and vocational disabilities.” (Id. at p. 243.) Accordingly, to rebut the PDRS and establish permanent total disability, applicant must prove the following: 1) Applicant has received a work restriction(s), which requires substantial medical evidence. 2) The work restriction(s) precludes applicant from rehabilitation into another career field, which requires vocational expert evidence. 3) The work restriction(s) precludes applicant from competing on the open labor market,
Permanent disability rating must reflect diminished ability to compete in open labor market, including vocational rehabilitation feasibility.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ15295325 · 2026-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.8The Court has held that "permanent disability rating should reflect as accurately as possible an injured employee's diminished ability to compete in the open labor market." LeBoeuf v. WCAB (1983) 48 CCC 587, 597. Further, "The fact that a worker has been precluded from vocational retraining is a significant factor to be taken into account in evaluating his or her potential employability. A prior permanent disability rating and award which fails to reflect that fact is inequitable." Id. at 597
The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.14(a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs as between the body parts rated; or (b) there is overlap, but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Vigil, supra, 89 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 694.) In the en banc decision in Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, we held that section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment." However, we further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability. While the PDRS is presumptively correct (see Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 826 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]), "a rating obtained pursuant to the PDRS may be rebutted by showing an applicant's diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the PDRS." (Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 749.) Among the methods described for challenging a rating obtained under the PDRS was establishing that "the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee's diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee's scheduled rating." (Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Vocational evidence must address apportionment and cannot substitute impermissible vocational apportionment for medical apportionment.
Official decision · page 14 → - ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.10Another way the cases have long recognized that a scheduled rating has been effectively rebutted is when the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee's diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee's scheduled rating. This is the rule expressed in LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [193 Cal.Rptr. 547, 666 P.2d 989]. In LeBoeuf, an injured worker sought to demonstrate that, due to the residual effects of his work-related injuries, he could not be retrained for suitable meaningful employment. (Id. at pp. 237-238.) Our Supreme Court concluded that it was error to preclude LeBoeuf from making such a showing, and held that "the fact that an injured employee is precluded from the option of receiving rehabilitation benefits should also be taken into account in the assessment of an injured employee's permanent disability rating."
Applied to support rebuttal of strict scheduled rating by applicant.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ12781361 · 2026-03-02 · Los Angeles District OfficeLeBoeuf
Determinative passage · p.4Petitioner A challenges the Finding regarding permanent disability, asserting that the undersigned WCJ should have found 100% permanent disability based upon the vocational expert reporting of Steve Ramirez dated February 29, 2024 [Applicant's Exhibit 1], citing LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 587. The crux of Petitioner A's argument is that despite the ability to do limited construction work, and care for his girlfriend, and use a computer, there is no ability to compete in the open labor market.
Applied to consider vocational evidence for rebutting scheduled rating
Official decision · page 4 →
All 29 decisions applying it →
Also on this
About LeBoeuf
What is LeBoeuf total disability?
LeBoeuf v. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 is the usual citation when permanent total disability is proved by inability to compete on the open labor market, not a 100 percent schedule rating. Ogilvie and Nunes are later chapters. These are later applications, not a case-value estimate.
Is LeBoeuf still good law after 2013?
The line continues through Ogilvie and Nunes after the rating amendments. This page is later panels still naming LeBoeuf. It is not a holding that every vocational theory succeeds.