What the panel ordered
Decision after reconsideration amends prior Findings and Award to find hypertension disability not subject to apportionment; issues of occupational group, permanent disability rating, and attorneys' fees deferred for further analysis
Petition for Reconsideration granted to study factual and legal issues; WCJ Findings and Award of Fact of January 17, 2020 reviewed
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.
Applicant's hypertension constitutes 'heart trouble' under Labor Code section 3212.2 and is therefore not subject to apportionment under Labor Code section 4663(e).
From the decision · page 4we find that applicant's hypertension, which caused left ventricular hypertrophy, constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of Labor Code section 3212.2. Because applicant's hypertension falls under Labor Code section 3212.2, his disability is exempt from apportionment, as provided by
The issue of attorneys' fees increase is deferred pending resolution of permanent disability and occupational group issues.
From the decision · page 6Accordingly, we amend the WCJ's decision to reflect that apportionment of the hypertension disability is not appropriate, but to reflect that the issues of occupational group, permanent disability, and attorneys' fees are deferred. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of the outstanding issues.
The issue of the proper occupational group was not decided and is deferred for further analysis due to unresolved stipulation and evidentiary issues.
From the decision · page 5We believe that the issue of applicant's proper occupational group must be reanalyzed, including the determination of the above unresolved issues. To the extent it is found that applicant is not bound by the representation on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement, the parties and the WCJ should further develop the evidentiary record on this issue, as the current record is not clear with regard to the applicant's work duties.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's hypertension caused left ventricular hypertrophy, qualifying as heart trouble under Labor Code section 3212.2
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact triggers the presumption of industrial causation and bars apportionment of hypertension disability under Labor Code section 4663(e).
From the decision · page 4we find that applicant's hypertension, which caused left ventricular hypertrophy, constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of Labor Code section 3212.2. Because applicant's hypertension falls under Labor Code section 3212.2, his disability is exempt from apportionment, as provided by
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.
Applicant's hypertension caused left ventricular hypertrophy, which qualifies as heart trouble under Labor Code section 3212.2, supporting a 30% impairment rating under AMA Guides Table 4-2.
Medical evidence shows hypertension caused heart trouble, supporting non-apportionment under Labor Code section 3212.2.
From the decision · page 3Agreed medical evaluator internist Stewart Lonky, M.D. wrote in his March 12, 2018 report that,
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 3212.2
Presumption of industrial causation for heart trouble under Labor Code section 3212.2
Applicant's hypertension constitutes heart trouble, triggering the presumption and barring apportionment under Labor Code section 4663(e).
From the decision · page 4we find that applicant's hypertension, which caused left ventricular hypertrophy, constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of Labor Code section 3212.2. Because applicant's hypertension falls under Labor Code section 3212.2, his disability is exempt from apportionment, as provided by
Labor Code section 4663(e)
Apportionment of disability under Labor Code section 4663(e)
Hypertension disability is not subject to apportionment because it qualifies as heart trouble under section 3212.2.
From the decision · page 4we find that applicant's hypertension, which caused left ventricular hypertrophy, constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of Labor Code section 3212.2. Because applicant's hypertension falls under Labor Code section 3212.2, his disability is exempt from apportionment, as provided by
Appeals Board Rule 10842
Appeals Board Rule 10842 regarding attorney's fee increase requests
Any request for an increase in attorney's fee must comply with Rule 10842, including notice to the applicant.
From the decision · page 6apportionment and the potential for a higher occupational adjustment, the WCJ may determine a new attorneys' fee de novo. However, applicant's counsel is reminded in further proceedings that any request for an increase in the attorneys' fee must comply with Appeals Board Rule 10842, which states, "All requests for an increase in attorney's fee shall be accompanied by proof of service on the applicant of written notice of the attorney's adverse interest and of the applicant's right to seek independent counsel. Failure to notify the applicant may constitute grounds for dismissal of the request for increase in fee." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10842.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's hypertension caused left ventricular hypertrophy, qualifying as heart trouble under Labor Code section 3212.2
From the decision · page 4we find that applicant's hypertension, which caused left ventricular hypertrophy, constitutes "heart trouble" for the purposes of Labor Code section 3212.2. Because applicant's hypertension falls under Labor Code section 3212.2, his disability is exempt from apportionment, as provided by
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.