What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of the July 29, 2022 Joint Findings and Award, 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.
ApportionmentApplicant prevailedlumbar spine · bilateral knees · hips · shoulders
The medical apportionment opinions of Dr. Luciano were found not to constitute substantial medical evidence because they lacked explanation and reasoning as required by Escobedo, and the defendant failed to prove overlap with a prior award as required by Kopping.
From the decision · page 2Report observed that the AME's apportionment analysis was not sustainable "because the apportionment percentages stated in his reports and deposition testimony are not supported by an explanation of the mechanism of apportionment and why each approximate percentage was chosen as opposed to a higher or lower percentage." (Report, at p. 3.) As we explained in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 605:
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.