ADJ11221216 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award issued by the WCJ on December 29, 2025, which found applicant totally permanently disabled due to admitted injury to psyche.

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 prevailedpsyche

The WCJ's finding of total permanent disability was upheld because the defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence to support apportionment, and the vocational evidence showed the applicant could not compete in the open labor market.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 29, 2025. Therein, and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the psyche while employed as a patrol officer during the period to and including November 5, 2017. The WCJ further found that applicant "cannot benefit from the provision of rehabilitation, as his restrictions from the industrial injury render him unable to compete for work in the general labor market. Therefore, he is found to be totally permanently disabled."

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant is totally permanently disabled due to admitted injury to psyche and cannot compete in the open labor market.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact supports the finding of 100% permanent disability and denial of apportionment.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 29, 2025. Therein, and as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the psyche while employed as a patrol officer during the period to and including November 5, 2017. The WCJ further found that applicant "cannot benefit from the provision of rehabilitation, as his restrictions from the industrial injury render him unable to compete for work in the general labor market. Therefore, he is found to be totally permanently disabled."

Dr. Palmer's apportionment opinion lacked sufficient explanation and reasoning to be substantial evidence.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This led to rejection of defendant's apportionment argument and upheld total permanent disability finding.

From the decision · page 12The standard for establishing legal apportionment was set forth by the Board in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 CCC 604, and specifically on page 621. There, the board stated that to be substantial evidence on the issue of apportionment, a doctor must describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability. To be substantial evidence, the medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, and most importantly, must set forth the reasoning in support of its conclusion. To illustrate the application of these principles, the Board stated "For example, if a physician opines that approximately 50% of an employee's back disability is directly caused by the industrial injury, the physician must explain how and why the disability is causally related to the industrial injury (e.g., the certain restrictions) and how and why the injury is responsible for approximately 50% of the disability. And, if a physician opines that 50% of an employee's back disability is caused by degenerative disc disease, the physician must explain the nature of the degenerative disc disease, how and why it is causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and how and why it is responsible for approximately 50% of the disability."

ADJ11221216 · March 23, 2026

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