What the panel ordered
Findings and Award and Order issued May 19, 2022, rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Petition for reconsideration of the Findings and Award and Order issued May 19, 2022, granted; matter returned to trial level for further development of the record.
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 Board found that the WCJ's application of section 4664(c) was not supported by substantial medical evidence regarding body system assignment and that further development of the record was necessary.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ's apportionment calculation under section 4664(c) was based on prior awards totaling 68% in the catch-all body system category.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This calculation was central to the disability rating and apportionment issue, but lacked substantial medical evidence for body system assignment.
From the decision · page 3This WCJ added 47%, 12%, and 9%, the total being 68%. This represents the percentage of prior stipulations that fall within the catch all provision of Labor Code Section 4664(c)(1)(G). Since only 32% remain that would bring this case up to 100% allowable in the catch-all region, the impairment found after apportionment was 32%.
The parties did not directly ask the evaluator to address body systems under section 4664(c).
Favours neutral
This lack of direct medical evidence on body system assignment necessitated further development of the record.
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.
Provided a rating of 9% for skin injury in prior award ADJ9920071, which was confirmed and admitted by applicant's attorney.
From the decision · page 3The applicant also had a stipulation of a rating of.75 (08.05.00.00-5-7-490H-10- 12) = 9% for Skin in ADJ9920071 based on the reporting of Dr. Cindy Chen M.D report dated 04/29/2016. This rating has been confirmed and the applicant attorney and admitted in its trial brief and petition for reconsideration that the defendant would be allowed apportionment pursuant this case of 9% and to ADJ9554243, of 12%.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4664(c)
Labor Code section 4664(c) limits the accumulation of permanent disability awards to 100% per body region unless total disability is conclusively presumed.
The Board reviewed the application of section 4664(c) to prior awards and apportionment in this case.
From the decision · page 4(c) (1) The accumulation of all permanent disability awards issued with respect to any one region of the body in favor of one individual employee shall not exceed 100 percent over the employee's lifetime unless the employee's injury or illness is conclusively presumed to be total in character pursuant to Section 4662. As used in this section, the regions of the body are the following:
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc)
Substantial medical evidence is required to assign disability to a body system under section 4664(c).
The Board emphasized the need for expert medical evidence to support body system assignment for apportionment under section 4664(c).
From the decision · page 5To constitute substantial evidence "... a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant had prior awards totaling 68% in the catch-all body system category under Labor Code section 4664(c)(1)(G).
From the decision · page 3This WCJ added 47%, 12%, and 9%, the total being 68%. This represents the percentage of prior stipulations that fall within the catch all provision of Labor Code Section 4664(c)(1)(G). Since only 32% remain that would bring this case up to 100% allowable in the catch-all region, the impairment found after apportionment was 32%.
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.