Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc)
To constitute substantial evidence, a vocational expert must predicate their opinion on reasonable vocational probability, root their analysis in the underlying medical record, and establish a logical nexus between the medical restrictions and an employee's inability to compete in the open labor market
Applied to find Van Winkle's reports meet substantial evidence standard because tethered to AME Scheinberg's findings
From the decision · page 5To constitute substantial evidence, a vocational expert must predicate their opinion on reasonable vocational probability, root their analysis in the underlying medical record, and establish a logical nexus between the medical restrictions and an employee’s inability to compete in the open labor market. ( Escobedo v.
The burden of proving apportionment rests with defendant; to constitute substantial medical evidence, an evaluating physician must provide a reasoned explanation as to the 'how and why' specific non-industrial factors or prior injuries are contributing to the current level of permanent disability
Applied to reject AME Scheinberg's apportionment opinions as bare legal conclusions lacking required explanation
From the decision · page 6(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) To constitute substantial medical evidence, an evaluating physician must provide a reasoned explanation as to the “how and why” specific non-industrial factors or prior injuries are contributing to the current level of permanent disability. ( Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p.
Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894 (Appeals Board en banc)
Where medical apportionment is legally deficient, a vocational expert may properly conclude that applicant is unable to compete in the open labor market without apportionment
Applied to allow vocational expert to offer analysis without apportionment when medical apportionment opinions are legally deficient
From the decision · page 6( Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894, 903 (Appeals Board en banc) [“[I]n those instances where there is a significant question as to the validity of a physician’s medical apportionment opinion, the vocational expert is free to offer their analysis in the alternative”].)