What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; final decision after reconsideration deferred pending further review.
Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on May 20, 2024, which found 95% permanent disability. The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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 WCAB found that the applicant's traumatic brain injury caused permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4), rebutting apportionment and supporting a finding of 100% permanent total disability, contrary to the WCJ's 95% partial disability award.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on March 13, 2016 as a science specialist by defendant, University of California, Berkeley, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her head, back, neck and in the form of tinnitus, post- concussive syndrome and traumatic brain injury, causing permanent disability of 95%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability less reasonable attorney fees, and future medical care.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Wayne Anderson's medical opinion that the applicant's traumatic brain injury causes permanent mental incapacity and total disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This opinion supports the conclusive presumption of permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4), rebutting apportionment and supporting a 100% disability award.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on March 13, 2016 as a science specialist by defendant, University of California, Berkeley, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her head, back, neck and in the form of tinnitus, post- concussive syndrome and traumatic brain injury, causing permanent disability of 95%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability less reasonable attorney fees, and future medical care.
Applicant's credible testimony describing significant cognitive and physical limitations due to traumatic brain injury and post-concussive syndrome.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the medical opinion and the finding of permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 5Applicant was the only witness to testify at trial. I found her testimony to be credible and understated throughout, and in certain salient respects compelling. Quite apart from her physical symptoms and limitations, which themselves are significant (see Exhs. 3, 4), she finds herself at sea when conversing with others. Burdened as well by daily headaches, she believes that she is incapable of performing in any sort of job. Dr. Anderson agrees.
Unrebutted medical and vocational evidence from Dr. Anderson and Jeff Malmuth establishing the applicant's preclusion from the labor market.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the finding of permanent total disability and rebuts contrary defense vocational opinions.
From the decision · page 7As discussed the PDRS can be rebutted. Here the applicant through the unrebutted medical evidence has proven that medically she is precluded from the open labor market which suggests she has a total loss in earning capacity which is sufficient to rebut the schedule.
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.
Dr. Anderson concluded the applicant sustained a traumatic brain injury causing permanent mental incapacity and total disability, precluding her from the labor market medically, independent of orthopedic injuries and apportionment for headaches.
Dr. Anderson's medical opinion supports a finding of permanent total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4), which is conclusive and rebuts apportionment.
From the decision · page 1Applicant has petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in this matter on May 20, 2024. In that decision, the WCJ found that applicant, while employed on March 13, 2016 as a science specialist by defendant, University of California, Berkeley, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of her employment to her head, back, neck and in the form of tinnitus, post- concussive syndrome and traumatic brain injury, causing permanent disability of 95%. Applicant was awarded permanent disability less reasonable attorney fees, and future medical care.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4662(a)(4)
Permanent total disability is conclusively presumed for brain injury resulting in permanent mental incapacity under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4).
The applicant's traumatic brain injury meets the criteria for conclusive presumption of permanent total disability, rebutting apportionment.
From the decision · page 5Labor Code § 4662, states, in pertinent part: (a) Any of the following permanent disabilities shall be conclusively presumed to be total in character:... (4) An injury to the brain resulting in permanent mental incapacity. (Cal. Lab. Code § 4662(a)(4).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Unrebutted medical evidence from Dr. Anderson and vocational evaluator Jeff Malmuth supporting total disability
From the decision · page 7As discussed the PDRS can be rebutted. Here the applicant through the unrebutted medical evidence has proven that medically she is precluded from the open labor market which suggests she has a total loss in earning capacity which is sufficient to rebut the schedule.
Applicant's credible testimony and medical evidence of traumatic brain injury and post-concussive syndrome
From the decision · page 5Applicant was the only witness to testify at trial. I found her testimony to be credible and understated throughout, and in certain salient respects compelling. Quite apart from her physical symptoms and limitations, which themselves are significant (see Exhs. 3, 4), she finds herself at sea when conversing with others. Burdened as well by daily headaches, she believes that she is incapable of performing in any sort of job. Dr. Anderson agrees.
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.