ADJ10808820 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Defendant filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award dated August 20, 2024; the WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on the Petition; the WCAB panel issued a decision denying the Petition on December 2, 2024.

Read the official 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.

Permanent disability ratingApplicant prevailedhands · wrists · right thumb · gastroesophageal reflux disorder

The WCJ correctly followed Dr. Walth's explanation and the en banc Vigil decision to add the impairment ratings rather than combine them using the Combined Values Chart, resulting in a 91% permanent disability rating, supported by substantial medical evidence and the parties' stipulation to the impairment ratings.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of August 20, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed as an office technician during a cumulative period ending April 27, 2026, applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to her hands, wrists, right thumb, and in the form of gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) causing permanent disability of 91%. At trial, the parties "agree[d] that the problem in this case pertains to whether or not the case of Kite applies. There is a stipulation to the effect that if Kite does not apply, the permanent disability equals 72%. If Kite does apply, depending on how it's rated, there's a variety of ways to rate it." In this stipulation, the parties were referencing Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), which held that adding two different impairments rather than combining them per the method outlined in the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities better reflected a worker's impairment when substantial medical evidence supported the notion that the two impairments had a synergistic effect where, in effect, the resultant impairment was more than the sum of the two impairments.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Dr. Walth's impairment ratings and explanation of synergistic effect were accepted as substantial medical evidence by the WCJ and the Board.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the finding that impairments should be added rather than combined, resulting in a higher permanent disability rating of 91%.

From the decision · page 4We find that the WCJ correctly followed Dr. Walth in adding, rather than combining, the right upper extremity disability to the left upper extremity disability. In our en banc opinion Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686, 691 [Appeals Bd. en banc] we expanded on Kite, supra, and held that two different impairments may be added, rather than combined, even if the impairments impact the same activities of daily living (ADLs) when the impact to the ADLs caused by the two impairments overlap in a way that increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs.

Defendant stipulated to the impairment ratings but reserved only the issue of whether to add or combine them and did not seek further medical inquiry before trial.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This procedural posture limited defendant's challenge and supported the Board's reliance on the stipulated ratings and Dr. Walth's reports.

From the decision · page 4By stipulating that applicant's permanent disability equaled 72% if the CVC was utilized, defendant expressly stipulated to the ratings above, with the only issue being whether body parts should be added or combined per the CVC. While defendant now attempts to argue that Dr. Walth's impairment ratings do not constitute substantial medical evidence, defendant has not set forth sufficient good cause to set aside its stipulation to the impairment ratings which adjust and combine to 72% permanent disability. In any case, if the defendant believed that Dr. Walth's ratings were legally or factually deficient, it should have sought a deposition or supplemental reporting from Dr. Walth. (Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (McDannald) (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 560, 572 [30 Cal.Comp.Cases 320].) To the contrary, it stipulated to the correctness of the impairments, reserving only the issue of whether they should be added or combined.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213

Adding two different impairments rather than combining them per the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities better reflects a worker's impairment when substantial medical evidence supports a synergistic effect, per Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213.

The Board applied Kite to find that the impairments should be added rather than combined using the Combined Values Chart, as supported by Dr. Walth's explanation and the parties' stipulation.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of August 20, 2024, wherein it was found that while employed as an office technician during a cumulative period ending April 27, 2026, applicant sustained admitted industrial injury to her hands, wrists, right thumb, and in the form of gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) causing permanent disability of 91%. At trial, the parties "agree[d] that the problem in this case pertains to whether or not the case of Kite applies. There is a stipulation to the effect that if Kite does not apply, the permanent disability equals 72%. If Kite does apply, depending on how it's rated, there's a variety of ways to rate it." In this stipulation, the parties were referencing Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den.), which held that adding two different impairments rather than combining them per the method outlined in the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities better reflected a worker's impairment when substantial medical evidence supported the notion that the two impairments had a synergistic effect where, in effect, the resultant impairment was more than the sum of the two impairments.

Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686

Two different impairments may be added rather than combined even if they impact the same activities of daily living when the impact overlaps and amplifies the effect, per Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686.

The Board applied Vigil to expand on Kite, supporting the addition of impairments due to overlapping and amplifying impact on activities of daily living, consistent with Dr. Walth's rationale.

From the decision · page 4We find that the WCJ correctly followed Dr. Walth in adding, rather than combining, the right upper extremity disability to the left upper extremity disability. In our en banc opinion Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686, 691 [Appeals Bd. en banc] we expanded on Kite, supra, and held that two different impairments may be added, rather than combined, even if the impairments impact the same activities of daily living (ADLs) when the impact to the ADLs caused by the two impairments overlap in a way that increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs.

ADJ10808820 · December 2, 2024

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page