What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the WCJ on June 13, 2025, which the WCAB denied.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 8, 2023.
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's finding of 69% permanent disability based on Dr. Mandell's AME reports was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, and penalties were affirmed for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award (F&A) issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 13, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in relevant part, that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his left knee, right knee, lower back, and left hip resulting in an award of 69% permanent disability based on the medical reporting agreed medical evaluator (AME) Dr. Peter Mandell, M.D. The WCJ also found that defendant unreasonably delayed or refused payment of partial permanent and temporary disability indemnity compensation and issued two penalties for defendant's unreasonable delay of payment of compensation pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5814.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Dr. Mandell's AME reports found 15% whole person impairment for each knee due to varus deformity and recommended adding the knee impairments rather than combining them.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This medical opinion was relied upon by the WCJ as substantial evidence to support the 69% permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 9The medical evidence was four AME reports from Peter Mandell, M.D. (joint exhibits 1-4) and Dr. Mandell's deposition transcript (joint exhibit 5). I did a detailed summary of the exhibits in the Opinion on Decision. The parties chose Peter Mandell, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, as their agreed medical evaluator. Dr. Mandell stated that applicant injured his low back and both knees. [WCJ Gogerman previously found injury to the lumbar spine, left knee and right hip in his December 14, 2022 Findings of Fact and Order.] Defendant challenged Dr. Mandell's permanent disability opinion by supplemental report and at deposition. Dr. Mandell opined that applicant's permanent disability was 15% WPI for each knee based on Table 17-10 page 537 of the AMA Guides for varus deformity. Defendant maintained that the AMA Guides mandated the evaluating physician to take several measurements of the varus deformity and Dr. Mandell only took one measurement of the varus deformity. Dr.
Defendant unreasonably delayed payment of temporary disability indemnity from May 9, 2023 to October 19, 2023, despite the amount being knowable and easily calculated.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This delay justified the award of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 in favor of the applicant.
Defendant failed to commence permanent disability indemnity payments retroactive to the permanent and stationary date of October 30, 2022, causing a delay of 64 weeks of payments.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure constituted an unreasonable delay under Labor Code section 4650 and justified penalties.
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. Mandell opined that applicant injured his low back and both knees, with 15% whole person impairment for each knee due to varus deformity, and that the knee disabilities should be added rather than combined due to synergistic interaction, resulting in a 69% permanent disability rating.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Mandell's reports and deposition transcript as substantial evidence for the permanent disability rating and the addition of knee impairments.
From the decision · page 9The medical evidence was four AME reports from Peter Mandell, M.D. (joint exhibits 1-4) and Dr. Mandell's deposition transcript (joint exhibit 5). I did a detailed summary of the exhibits in the Opinion on Decision. The parties chose Peter Mandell, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, as their agreed medical evaluator. Dr. Mandell stated that applicant injured his low back and both knees. [WCJ Gogerman previously found injury to the lumbar spine, left knee and right hip in his December 14, 2022 Findings of Fact and Order.] Defendant challenged Dr. Mandell's permanent disability opinion by supplemental report and at deposition. Dr. Mandell opined that applicant's permanent disability was 15% WPI for each knee based on Table 17-10 page 537 of the AMA Guides for varus deformity. Defendant maintained that the AMA Guides mandated the evaluating physician to take several measurements of the varus deformity and Dr. Mandell only took one measurement of the varus deformity. Dr.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4650
Permanent partial disability payments shall commence on the date temporary disability payments end or the permanent and stationary date, whichever is earlier.
Defendant was required to commence permanent disability indemnity payments retroactive to the permanent and stationary date of October 30, 2022.
Labor Code section 5814
Penalties were awarded for defendant's unreasonable delay in payment of temporary and permanent disability indemnity.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant unreasonably delayed payment of temporary disability indemnity from May 9, 2023 to October 19, 2023.
Defendant failed to pay permanent disability indemnity starting from the permanent and stationary date of October 30, 2022, causing a delay of 64 weeks of payments.
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.