ADJ13042541 · May 18, 2026

The WCJ found permanent total disability based on substantial evidence including the QME's opinion that disabilities should be added rather than combined. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits and the record due to incomplete development and statutory time constraints.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 13, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, right ankle, right hip, right foot, right toes, complex regional pain syndrome, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists and right leg resulting in permanent total disability.

Applicant sustained industrial injury to multiple body parts including spine, right lower extremity, and upper extremities with complex regional pain syndrome causing worsening condition.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This supported the WCJ's finding of permanent total disability and justified reopening and adding disabilities rather than combining them.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 13, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, thoracic spine, right ankle, right hip, right foot, right toes, complex regional pain syndrome, bilateral shoulders, bilateral wrists and right leg resulting in permanent total disability.

Dr. Chen's opinion that disabilities should be added rather than combined due to overlapping effects on activities of daily living.

Favours Applicant prevailed

The WCJ relied on this opinion as substantial evidence to support the permanent total disability award.

From the decision · page 3At trial, the only evidence on the issue of permanent disability, was the reports and deposition transcripts of the panel QME, Christopher Chen, M.D. Dr. Chen described impairment and disability to multiple body parts. He opined that many of the disabilities should be added.

Defendant's argument that prior stipulation to 69% partial permanent disability precludes adding disabilities and requires combining due to collateral estoppel.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This argument was the basis for the petition for reconsideration and the Appeals Board's grant of reconsideration to review the merits.

From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in finding permanent total disability arguing that the parties' previous stipulation to a 69% partial permanent disability precludes the WCJ from adding the disabilities from those stipulations and that the disabilities must be combined because there is a collateral estoppel effect.

The record was not sufficiently developed on the issue of permanent disability and statutory time constraints required reconsideration to allow further review.

Favours neutral

This justified the Appeals Board's grant of reconsideration and deferral of final decision.

From the decision · page 9Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that the record has been sufficiently developed as to the issue of permanent disability. Where the medical evidence or opinion on an issue is incomplete, stale, and no longer germane, or is based on an inaccurate history, or speculation, it does not constitute substantial evidence. (Place v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)

Dr. Chen opined that most of the disabilities should be added rather than combined using the combined values chart, explaining overlapping effects on activities of daily living.

Dr. Chen's opinion was relied upon by the WCJ as substantial evidence supporting the permanent total disability award.

From the decision · page 3At trial, the only evidence on the issue of permanent disability, was the reports and deposition transcripts of the panel QME, Christopher Chen, M.D. Dr. Chen described impairment and disability to multiple body parts. He opined that many of the disabilities should be added.

Labor Code section 5909

Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5909.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration but deferred final decision pending further review due to statutory time constraints and incomplete record development.

From the decision · page 2I. Preliminarily, we note that former section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part 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.

Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

Writ of review may be sought after final decision on reconsideration under Labor Code section 5950 et seq.

The decision notes that after final decision on reconsideration, a writ of review may be timely sought.

From the decision · page 2final decision after reconsideration is issued by the Appeals Board, any aggrieved person may timely seek a writ of review pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5950 et seq.

Dr. Chen's medical reports and opinions on disability and impairment to multiple body parts

From the decision · page 3At trial, the only evidence on the issue of permanent disability, was the reports and deposition transcripts of the panel QME, Christopher Chen, M.D. Dr. Chen described impairment and disability to multiple body parts. He opined that many of the disabilities should be added.