What the panel ordered
The WCJ's Findings, Award and Order of May 23, 2023 is rescinded and the matter is returned for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings, Award and Order of May 23, 2023, which found 24% permanent disability after apportionment; the WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision to allow admission of earlier medical reports for reanalysis of apportionment.
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 WCAB found that the medical evidence supporting the apportionment was conclusory and not substantial medical evidence, requiring reconsideration and further evidentiary development.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of May 23, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed on August 30, 2016 as a laborer, applicant sustained admitted injury to his dominant right hand and fingers causing permanent disability of 24% after apportionment. In finding permanent disability of 24%, the WCJ followed the apportionment findings of agreed medical evaluator (AME) orthopedic hand specialist Leonard Gordon, M.D., who opined that 60 percent of applicant's permanent disability was due to the industrial injury, and 40 percent was due to non- industrial factors. The WCJ also rejected vocational evidence offered to rebut the permanent impairment rating garnered from the AME's medical evaluation.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Gordon's apportionment explanation was conclusory and lacked detailed causation analysis of the non-industrial condition's contribution to disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of detailed explanation meant the medical evidence did not constitute substantial evidence to support the apportionment finding.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Gordon's explanation of apportionment in the current evidentiary record is conclusory and does not constitute substantial medical evidence. The reports that are in the current evidentiary
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.
Opined that 60% of applicant's permanent disability was due to industrial injury and 40% due to non-industrial factors; however, the explanation was conclusory and not substantial medical evidence in the current record.
The WCAB found Dr. Gordon's apportionment explanation conclusory and lacking detailed causation analysis, requiring admission of earlier reports for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings, Award and Order of May 23, 2023, wherein it was found that, while employed on August 30, 2016 as a laborer, applicant sustained admitted injury to his dominant right hand and fingers causing permanent disability of 24% after apportionment. In finding permanent disability of 24%, the WCJ followed the apportionment findings of agreed medical evaluator (AME) orthopedic hand specialist Leonard Gordon, M.D., who opined that 60 percent of applicant's permanent disability was due to the industrial injury, and 40 percent was due to non- industrial factors. The WCJ also rejected vocational evidence offered to rebut the permanent impairment rating garnered from the AME's medical evaluation.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 617 [Appeals Bd. en banc]
A medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely conclusions; apportionment opinions must disclose familiarity with apportionment concepts and detail the nature of the apportionable disability and basis for the opinion.
The WCAB applied this standard to find Dr. Gordon's apportionment opinion conclusory and not substantial medical evidence, requiring reconsideration.
From the decision · page 3asymptomatic prior conditions (see, e.g. Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 617 [Appeals Bd. en banc]), an apportionment opinion must still constitute substantial medical
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Gordon's apportionment explanation was conclusory and did not describe in detail how the non-industrial enchondroma contributed to the permanent impairment.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Gordon's explanation of apportionment in the current evidentiary record is conclusory and does not constitute substantial medical evidence. The reports that are in the current evidentiary
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.