ADJ11324273 · June 1, 2026

The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.

From the decision · page 1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.

Applicant has some use of both hands and can perform small jobs with his fingers and hands, contradicting the claim of total loss of use of both hands.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact contradicts the legal requirement for the conclusive presumption of total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(2).

From the decision · page 14Although applicant testified that he "has no feeling at all in either hand," he also testified he "has motor strength in his hands and is able to do small jobs with his fingers and hands." (MOH SOE, July 18, 2025, p. 7, lns 16-17, 19-20.) Clearly the ability to "do small jobs with his fingers and hands" is at odds with requirement of losing "both hands or the use thereof." There is no doubt that applicant has a significant and very real disability as a result of his industrial injury. The record does not, however, contain substantial evidence supporting application of section 4066(a)(2)'s presumption.

Dr. Schwartz opined that the applicant would never regain satisfactory function of either hand, that no surgery would help, and that the applicant is not capable of any kind of employment due to industrial injuries, but these opinions lacked sufficient reasoning to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings.

The WCAB found Dr. Schwartz's statements conclusory and lacking connective reasoning to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings.

From the decision · page 4There is reporting from PQME Arthur Schwartz, M.D., beginning with the March 12, 2018, Panel Qualified Medical Evaluation. "I believe that he will never regan [sic] satisfactory function of either hand. No surgery would help." (Exhibit 4, Arthur Schwartz, M.D., March 12, 2018, p. 4.)

Labor Code sections 4660(c), 4660.1(d)

Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of permanent disability level.

The WCAB applied the PDRS and AMA Guides as the basis for disability rating and found no medical basis to rebut them.

From the decision · page 81. Applicant asserts that he is 100% permanently totally disabled based on the conclusive presumption of section 4662(a) for "loss of both hands or use thereof" or, alternatively, that he has successfully rebutted the PDRS. (Petition, p. 3, lns 49-51; p. 5, lns 134-137.) There are no other challenges to the FA&O. We will first address the claim of PDRS rebuttal. The State Legislature has set the foundation for establishing disability as the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS), which is prima facie evidence of applicant's level of permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660(c), 4660.1(d).) Further, the Legislature has incorporated the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition (AMA Guides) into the PDRS for evaluating physical injury or disfigurement. Section 4660.1 states in the relevant part: (a) In determining the percentages of permanent partial or permanent total disability, account shall be taken of the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee, and the employee's age at the time of injury.

AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th Edition, is incorporated into the PDRS and used for impairment evaluation.

The AMA Guides provide the standard method for impairment evaluation and are rebuttable only with substantial medical evidence, which was not found here.

From the decision · page 9exception for claims of psychiatric impairment. (PDRS, p. 1-2; 1-12.) The AMA Guides provide that "[a]n impairment evaluation is a medical evaluation

Applicant's testimony that he has motor strength in his hands and can do small jobs with his fingers and hands, which contradicts the claim of total loss of use of both hands.

From the decision · page 14Although applicant testified that he "has no feeling at all in either hand," he also testified he "has motor strength in his hands and is able to do small jobs with his fingers and hands." (MOH SOE, July 18, 2025, p. 7, lns 16-17, 19-20.) Clearly the ability to "do small jobs with his fingers and hands" is at odds with requirement of losing "both hands or the use thereof." There is no doubt that applicant has a significant and very real disability as a result of his industrial injury. The record does not, however, contain substantial evidence supporting application of section 4066(a)(2)'s presumption.