Almaraz/Guzman — rebutting the strict Guides

How later panels applied it

Newest released decisions whose legal-standard extraction named this holding. Each quotes the passage and links to the official PDF. The leading case is cited the way courts cite it; our own cards stay ADJ, date, and issue. Litigated tail — not a win rate.

• ADJ14589712 · 2026-06-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.6III. Defendant further contends that applicant failed to satisfy the requirements outlined under Vigil for rebuttal of the CVC method of rating with respect to the bilateral knees. (Petition, p. 4.) Pursuant to section 4660.1, the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee's permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274-1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) The PDRS provides that the ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are "generally" combined using the CVC, which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1- 10.)Yet, because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee's whole person impairment so long as the physician's opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides.

  Applicant may rebut CVC by showing ADLs impacted and non-overlapping or amplifying effects.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ14079246 · 2026-05-26 · San Francisco District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.5Bd. en banc) (Almaraz 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." (Id. 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.

  Applied to consider Dr. Mandell's Guzman rebuttal analysis.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.9Section 4660 provides that permanent disability is determined by consideration of whole person impairment within the four corners of the AMA Guides, as applied by the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) in light of the medical record and the effect of the injury on the worker's future earning capacity. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565] ["permanent disability payments are intended to compensate workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity"]; Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680] (Fitzpatrick); Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837] (Guzman).)

  Applied to assess permanent disability rating and rebuttal of scheduled rating.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ13057169 · 2026-03-12 · San Francisco District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.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.

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

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ11078504 · 2026-03-09 · San Francisco District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.5The opinions of orthopedic AME Dr. Renbaum are deficient with respect to rating and apportionment of cervical spine disability. Labor Code section 4660, subsection (b)(1) requires the use of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides) in assessing the nature of an injury or disfigurement for purposes of determining a percentage of permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660(b)(1).) Chapter 15 of the AMA Guides requires the use of the Range of Motion (ROM) method instead of a Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) in cases involving more than one segment within the same region of the spine. (AMA Guides, § 15.2, pp. 379-381.) Because applicant had a prior surgery to a separate segment of her cervical spine, the ROM method should have been used to assess whole person impairment (WPI) of the cervical spine, unless the physician provided substantial medical evidence demonstrating how and why a more accurate rating required the use of another method set forth in the AMA Guides, as discussed

  Applied to assess adequacy of AME's rating method for cervical spine impairment.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ6508173 · 2026-01-16 · Marina del Rey District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.4In addition, while the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) function as advisory frameworks, they are not strict texts subject to rote or literal application. Instead, an evaluating physician may use their experience and expertise to interpret and apply any portion of the entire AMA Guides. Pursuant to Almaraz/Guzman II 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, the Appeals Board held that:

  Applied to assess the appropriateness of Dr. Gillis's rating method.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17939202 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.8They chose not to do so. Petitioner argues that Dr. Solomon did not abide by the AMA Guides in his application of decreased strength deficit with decreased motion. (Petition p. 4, lines 19-20.) This contention ignores that a physician may utilize any chapter, table or method in the AMA Guides that most accurately reflects the injured employee's impairment. (Almaraz/Guzman II (2009) 74 Cal. Comp. Cases 1084 at 1114.) A physician may employ the four corners of the AMA guides in reporting an applicant's WPI as long as they provide appropriate justification for doing so. Impairment percentages estimate the impact of the impairment on the individual's overall ability to perform activities of daily living, excluding work. (AMA Guides, p. 4.)

  Applied to support Dr. Solomon's use of both range of motion and strength deficit in impairment rating.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ9159725 · 2025-12-19 · Riverside District OfficeAlmaraz/Guzman

  Determinative passage · p.12The purpose of 4664(c) is to preclude accumulation of disability beyond 100% "with respect to any one region of the body". The overarching goal of rating permanent impairment is to achieve accuracy. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 808, 822 [115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 837].) It has consistently been held that where applicant's disability can be rated using multiple methods, applicant is entitled to the higher rating. (Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 197 Cal. App. 4th 1262, 1277, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 704 [permitting rebuttal of the rating schedule with alternative higher rating based upon diminished future earnings]; see also, Grossmont Union High School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Burns) (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 687, [1997 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 4483] (writ denied) [establishing dual-occupational rule, which allows for higher of two ratings when applicant's occupation spans two categories]; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Suttner) (1990) 55 Cal. Comp. Cases 127, [1990 Cal.

  Applied to clarify rating under section 4664(c) and remand for further development

  Official decision · page 12 →