What the panel ordered
Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award of July 9, 2026 is DENIED.p. 6
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award of July 9, 2026, which found permanent total disability for applicant; the WCAB panel denied the petition for reconsideration.
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 WCJ found permanent total disability based on medical restrictions by Dr. Gjerdrum and vocational evidence from applicant's expert Van Winkle, which the WCJ found more persuasive than defense expert Wilkinson's opinion.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Award of July 9, 2026 wherein it was found that while employed on May 10, 2027 as a houseman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine and left hip causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, it was found that the standard AMA Guides impairment had been rebutted by vocational evidence proving that applicant’s injury rendered him unable to compete in the open labor market and unamenable to vocational rehabilitation. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding that applicant’s injury had caused permanent total disability, arguing that the WCJ should have relied upon the opinion of defense vocational expert Keith S. Wilkinson rather than the opinion of applicant’s vocational expert David Van Winkle.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's work restrictions as detailed by Dr. Gjerdrum, including limited standing, walking, lifting only in seated position, and use of a cane.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These restrictions supported the finding that applicant is permanently totally disabled and unable to compete in the open labor market.
From the decision · page 4Applicant is limited to standing for one to two hours per day with 30-minute breaks in between; no walking; or walking less than one hour per day. The same is true for standing- two hours maximum for an eight-hour day, and 30-minute breaks.
Vocational expert David Van Winkle's opinion was found more persuasive than defense expert Keith Wilkinson's opinion, particularly because Wilkinson's examples did not consider Dr. Gjerdrum's limitation of sitting only two hours per day.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This credibility determination led to the denial of defendant's petition for reconsideration and upheld the permanent total disability finding.
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 is limited to sedentary or desk work only without hip replacement; work restrictions include limited standing, walking, lifting in seated position, and use of cane; no change in opinion over time despite additional reports.
Dr. Gjerdrum's medical restrictions formed the basis for the permanent total disability finding, supported by vocational evidence.
From the decision · page 4report of Thor Gjerdrum, M.D., dated July 24, 2024, and his deposition taken on June 23, 2023.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 regarding timely action on petitions for reconsideration.
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period to deny the petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1We have received an Answer from the applicant, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report). For the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Report, which we adopt, incorporate, and quote below, and for the additional reasons stated below, we will deny applicant’s Petition. I. Petitions for reconsideration filed on or after July 14, 2026 are subject to Labor Code section 5909, which states that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility of vocational expert David Van Winkle's detailed report and consideration of Dr. Gjerdrum's restrictions favored applicant's position on permanent total disability.
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.