What the panel ordered
The WCAB granted reconsideration and amended the Findings and Award to defer the permanent disability issue for further record development. Future medical treatment was awarded as per Dr. Cox's opinion. The petition for reconsideration was granted.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award of May 16, 2024, challenging the permanent disability rating and combination of impairments. The WCAB granted reconsideration and remanded for further development of the record regarding the permanent disability determination.
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 WCAB found Dr. Cox's permanent disability rating unclear regarding the proper gait derangement rating and whether the lifting capacity rating should be combined or used alternatively. The record was remanded for further development to clarify these issues consistent with AMA Guides and Almaraz/Guzman standards.
From the decision · page 6All findings of the WCAB must be based on substantial evidence. (Le Vesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 637 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 [Appeals Bd. en banc].) As the Court of Appeal wrote in E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687], "In order to constitute substantial evidence, a medical opinion must be predicated on reasonable medical probability. [Citation.] Also, a medical opinion is not substantial evidence if it is based on facts no longer germane, on inadequate medical histories or examinations, on incorrect legal theories, or on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess. [Citation.] Further, a medical report is not substantial evidence unless it sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions. [Citation.]"