ADJ13057169 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration and upheld the Findings and Award.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued on December 4, 2025, which found applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment resulting in 62% permanent disability and awarded future medical and payment. The WCJ report recommended denial of the petition for reconsideration.

Read the official decision →

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.

Permanent disability ratingApplicant prevailedright leg · right knee · low back

The WCJ's adoption of Dr. Burt's Almaraz-Guzman rating was supported by substantial medical evidence, including a thorough explanation of the alternative rating method and the synergistic effect of multiple injuries, consistent with Almaraz-Guzman II and Vigil standards.

From the decision · page 8Defendant contends that the WCJ's adoption of Dr. Burt's Almaraz-Guzman rating was an "improper deviation from the permanent disability rating schedule." (Petition, p. 10.)

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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.

AMERelied upon

Diagnosed CRPS and provided alternative permanent disability ratings using Almaraz-Guzman method, explaining synergistic effects of injuries on ADLs and supporting additive rating over combined values chart.

Dr. Burt provided detailed AMA Guides ratings and explained why the alternative Almaraz-Guzman rating more accurately reflected the applicant's disability, including synergistic effects of multiple injuries.

From the decision · page 2Applicant sought treatment with primary treating physician (PTP), Jeff Jones, M.D. Thereafter, the parties agreed to use Dr. Burt as the AME. Dr. Burt evaluated applicant on two occasions and issued reports dated September 29, 2021, December 27, 2021, January 18, 2022, March 30, 2022, December 13, 2022, February 19, 2024, June 27, 2025, and July 21, 2025. In his September 29, 2021 report, Dr. Burt diagnosed applicant with low back pain, radiculopathy, post-surgical lesions, and right lower extremity CRPS involving the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve and common femoral nerve at the fibular head. (Exhibit 101, p. 7.) In his January 18, 2022 supplemental report, Dr. Burt stated that, in accordance with page 553 of AMA Guides, "CRPS is currently believed to occur in the central nervous system, so the evaluator should use the station and gait impairment criteria in Table 13-15 to rate lower extremity impairments due to lesions in the central nervous system." (Exhibit 103, p.

PTPRejected

Did not diagnose CRPS, noted reliance on past reports and use of Budapest criteria for clinical diagnosis.

Dr. Jones's opinion was found less persuasive due to reliance on outdated reports and lack of reevaluation, and absence of superseding AMA Guides.

From the decision · page 5inquiry from the defense attorney. Dr. Jones indicated that applicant did not have CRPS, but admitted that the findings were not "more definitive" because he was forced to rely upon past

otherRejected

Provided impairment rating excluding lumbar spine analysis, lacking consideration of synergistic effects of multiple injuries.

Dr. Xeller's reports lacked lumbar spine analysis and did not address synergistic effects, making them less persuasive than Dr. Burt's opinion.

From the decision · page 6Thereafter, Charles Xeller, M.D. was retained as the Independent Medical Evaluator (IME). Dr. Xeller evaluated applicant on at least one occasion and issued reports dated March 21, 2025, April 15, 2025, and June 13, 2025.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School Dist. (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

Almaraz-Guzman II standard for rebutting the permanent disability rating schedule by providing an alternative rating within the AMA Guides.

The WCJ applied this standard to find Dr. Burt's alternative rating method as substantial medical evidence supporting the applicant's permanent disability rating.

From the decision · page 8It is well established that while the PDRS is prima facie evidence of an employee's permanent disability, it is rebuttable. (Lab. Code, § 4660.1; Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School Dist. (Almaraz-Guzman II) (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, 1106 (Appeals Bd. en banc); see Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613 (Appeals Bd. en banc); City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cannon) (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1360.) In Almaraz-Guzman II, we held that a "scheduled permanent disability rating may be rebutted by successfully challenging the component element of that rating relating to the employee's WPI under the AMA Guides....by establishing that another chapter, table, or method within the four corners of the Guides most accurately reflects the injured employee's impairment." (Almaraz II, supra, at pp. 1095-1096.) In Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837], the Court of Appeal affirmed our decision in Almaraz II and noted that the end goal in rating impairments is ultimately accuracy.

Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

Vigil standard requiring proof of impact on ADLs and overlap or amplification of overlapping ADLs to rebut the combined values chart method.

The WCJ found Dr. Burt's testimony satisfied the Vigil requirements for using the addition method over the combined values chart for rating impairments.

From the decision · page 10Subsequent to Kite, the Appeals Board issued the en banc case of Vigil wherein it was determined that if an applicant seeks to rebut the CVC and add rather than combine impairments, the applicant must establish 1) The ADLs impacted by each impairment, and 2) That the ADLs either do not overlap, or overlap in such a way that it increases or amplifies the impact of the overlapping ADLs. (Vigil, supra, at pp. 688-689.)

ADJ13057169 · March 12, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page