What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Award of October 12, 2020, denying compensable permanent disability due to overlap and apportionment under Labor Code section 4664.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on October 12, 2020, which found industrial injury to psyche but no compensable permanent disability due to apportionment under Labor Code section 4664. The WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration.
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 injury was found compensable as a violent act under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(2), supported by the QME's description and the circumstances of the incident.
From the decision · page 10of an angry parent whose behavior was alarming enough to get her escorted away by police, and on that basis can only conclude that her words were "violent" and "vehemently or passionately threatening." Presumably, defendant understood them that way, up until the time of the MSC, and paid benefits accordingly. (Defendant also stated at trial that it had not ceased providing medical treatment. It did not specify whether this was for the 2019 injury, or that in 2008, or both.) The injury is compensable.
The WCJ and WCAB found that the permanent disability from the 2019 injury overlapped with the prior 2008 injury, and thus apportionment under section 4664 applied, negating compensable permanent disability for the 2019 injury.
From the decision · page 2The essence of applicant's argument is that applicant's disability to the psyche in 2008 does not overlap with the current disability to psyche in 2019, and thus defendant failed to prove apportionment. The injury to psyche in both cases was post-traumatic stress disorder. Applicant's disability was rated the exact same way, using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The diminished future earnings capacity modifier for both cases was 1.4. It is the same body part, same diagnosis, and same rating method in both cases. On these facts the two disabilities clearly overlap. (See, Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., (2006), 142 Cal. App. 4th 1099.) The WCJ was correct to apply apportionment under section 4664.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The 2019 injury to psyche was found to be an aggravation and reactivation of the 2008 PTSD injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This supported the finding of overlap and application of apportionment under Labor Code section 4664, negating compensable permanent disability for the 2019 injury.
From the decision · page 11The problems with this argument begin with the conclusions of the later QME, Dr. Robbins, who quite clearly believes that the applicant's current diagnosis of PTSD first took shape
Applicant's injury was compensable as a violent act under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(2).
Favours Applicant prevailed
This established compensability of the 2019 injury to psyche.
From the decision · page 10of an angry parent whose behavior was alarming enough to get her escorted away by police, and on that basis can only conclude that her words were "violent" and "vehemently or passionately threatening." Presumably, defendant understood them that way, up until the time of the MSC, and paid benefits accordingly. (Defendant also stated at trial that it had not ceased providing medical treatment. It did not specify whether this was for the 2019 injury, or that in 2008, or both.) The injury is compensable.
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.
Found 11% whole-person impairment with 75% stemming from the 2019 injury and the rest from the 2008 injury; diagnosed chronic PTSD in partial remission, major depressive disorder, and obesity; concluded 2019 injury aggravated and reactivated the 2008 PTSD.
Dr. Robbins' reports supported the finding of overlap and apportionment under Labor Code section 4664.
From the decision · page 8In the current matter, the parties have engaged a qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Robbins, who has authored three reports. In the first, dated September 23, 2019, he equivocated about permanent and stationary status, clarifying in a supplemental report dated November 13, 2019, that applicant's condition had not stabilized and he would need to see her again after some months had passed after her return to work. In his ultimate report, dated March 4, 2020, the QME found her maximally improved, with a GAF score of 65, plus additional impairment for sleep difficulties, amounting to 11% whole-person impairment, of which 75% stems from the 2019 injury and the rest from that in 2008. His diagnoses are "chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, in partial remission," "major depressive disorder, recurrent episode in partial remission," and obesity.
Reported in 2009 a GAF score of 60 with 15% permanent impairment and apportioned 10% to nonindustrial causes; in 2016 found no signs of PTSD and recommended limiting further treatment.
Dr. Lieberman's evaluations provided background on the 2008 injury and its resolution, relevant to the apportionment analysis.
From the decision · page 8This is set against a background that includes an earlier incident in which a custodian, disguised with wig and sunglasses and reportedly armed with a semi-automatic weapon, attacked her from behind and pistol-whipped her, causing lacerations and lasting psychological trauma diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. Applicant missed relatively little time from work, however, though she did continue in therapy and took prescription medications for a time. The parties engaged an agreed medical evaluator (AME), Dr. Richard Lieberman, who reported on November 10, 2009, that applicant's injury had stabilized, with a GAF6 score of 60 or 15% permanent impairment, of which he apportioned 10% to nonindustrial causes. The workers' compensation case resolved by a stipulated award of 27% permanent disability with a need for further medical treatment. It appears that defendant came to question its ongoing liability for medical care (no other issue remained), and Dr. Lieberman rexamined the applicant in 2016, concluding in his report of June 16, 2016, that she no longer showed signs of PTSD. The AME at this point did find a GAF score of 64 and recommended limiting further treatment.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 3208.3 - compensability of psychiatric injury
Applied to determine compensability of the 2019 psychiatric injury as a violent act.
From the decision · page 9Section 3208.38 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 4664 - apportionment of permanent disability
Applied to find that the prior 2008 permanent disability award overlaps with the 2019 injury, negating compensable permanent disability for the latter.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
QME Dr. Robbins' reports indicating the 2019 injury aggravated and reactivated the 2008 PTSD
From the decision · page 11The problems with this argument begin with the conclusions of the later QME, Dr. Robbins, who quite clearly believes that the applicant's current diagnosis of PTSD first took shape
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.