What this dispute is
Permanent disability rating is the number, not the split. These decisions are about how the rating was supported or rebutted. They are litigated outcomes, not a schedule of what a case is worth.
What the Appeals Board did with this
Newest released decisions that turned on this issue. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF. Litigated tail — not a win rate, not a settlement value.
- ADJ10896001 · 2026-06-18 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.14Here, a careful review of the medical reporting in this matter reveals that the apportionment opinions provided by both PQME Dr. Brooks and PQME Dr. Tirmizi fail to meet this rigorous evidentiary standard. The apportionment analysis proffered by PQME Dr. Brooks regarding applicant's thoracic and lumbar spine relies upon generalized factors rather than a precise medical explanation of causation. PQME Dr. Brooks assigned 75% nonindustrial apportionment to both spinal regions, attributing this allocation to applicant's mild degenerative MRI findings, his 16 years of previous employment in the construction industry, his participation in sports activities, and his limited 60-day tenure with defendant. PQME Dr. Brooks justified this determination by concluding that a single specific injury likely did not cause the total impairment and positing that applicant likely would have developed 75% of the impairment even absent the October 28, 2016 injury. This rationale is fundamentally speculative. The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. By relying on applicant's prior work history and sports activities
The apportionment opinions by PQME Dr. Brooks and Dr. Tirmizi lacked sufficient medical explanation and were speculative, so no apportionment was found. The permanent disability was found to be 27%.
Official decision · page 14 → - ADJ15295325 · 2026-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact and Award of March 12, 2026, wherein it was found that while employed as a correctional officer during a cumulative period ending on June 19, 2021, applicant sustained industrial injury to the neck causing permanent disability of 40% after apportionment. In finding permanent disability of 40%, it was determined that applicant did not prove that she was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and did not prove that she was unable to compete in the open labor market. Additionally, it was found that, pursuant to the apportionment determination of qualified medical evaluator, physical medicine specialist Brian Karvelas, M.D., that 20 percent of applicant's permanent disability was caused by factors other than the industrial injury. Therefore, applicant's overall 48% permanent disability was apportioned, and it was found that applicant was entitled to an award of 40% compensable permanent disability.
The Board found that the applicant did not rebut the scheduled rating but that the apportionment evidence by Dr. Karvelas was not substantial medical evidence, thus granting an unapportioned 48% permanent disability award.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ118647 · 2026-06-08 · San Diego District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8After reviewing all the evidence presented, including the testimony of the current claims adjuster and the Applicant, the undersigned determined there was no substantial medical evidence on the issue of Applicant's permanent disability for her admitted injuries and ordered that parties to undergo the Panel Qualified Medical process. Although admittedly it is unclear, Applicant does
Applicant failed to prove permanent disability or apportionment for her industrial injury to the neck and bilateral shoulders by a preponderance of the evidence.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ11324273 · 2026-06-01 · Oxnard District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on March 16, 2026, of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)'s February 17, 2026, Joint Findings, Award & Order (FA&O), in which, as relevant here, the WCJ found that applicant sustained 57% disability in ADJ11728160, the cumulative claim.
The WCAB found no substantial medical evidence to rebut the AMA Guides impairment ratings and denied the claim for 100% disability under the presumption of total disability for loss of both hands or use thereof.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ21369860 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.
Applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212 and did not show good cause to set aside the stipulation, so the stipulated occupational group was upheld for the permanent disability rating.
Official decision · page 5 → - ADJ11850265 · 2026-04-28 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Reconsideration from the Findings & Award of 11/09/2021, listing the usual statutory grounds. The issue is whether QME Dr. Stone's opinion, that the neck and upper extremity impairments should be combined with the lower extremity impairments by simple addition, qualifies as substantial medical evidence. I found that Dr. Stone's opinion in this regard did so qualify. The Petition for Reconsideration is without merit and should be denied.
Dr. Stone's opinion that the neck and upper extremity impairments should be combined with the lower extremity impairments by simple addition rather than the Combined Values Chart (CVC) is supported as substantial evidence, leading to a 59% permanent disability rating rather than 51%.
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ13594888 · 2026-04-13 · San Jose District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Third Amended Arbitrator's Findings and Award" (F&A) issued on January 30, 2026, by the Ironworkers Workers' Compensation Alternative Dispute Resolution Program arbitrator (WCA).1 The arbitrator found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained an industrial cumulative injury through the period ending on October 1, 2017, to his neck, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, bilateral upper extremities, bilateral hands, bilateral wrists, bilateral knees, bilateral feet, bilateral ankles, and psyche. The arbitrator further found that applicant's injury caused applicant to sustain 94% permanent partial disability and that 100% of applicant's disability was industrially caused, without apportionment. The arbitrator found that applicant was amenable to vocational rehabilitation and that he could compete in the open labor market, and thus, applicant failed to rebut the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was not permanently totally disabled.
Applicant's medical evidence and vocational evidence support a finding of permanent total disability, contrary to the arbitrator's original finding of permanent partial disability. The Board found the work restrictions assigned by Dr. Henry to be substantial medical evidence and credited the vocational expert's opinion that applicant cannot compete in the open labor market.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ6741812 · 2026-04-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.11Accordingly, we will substitute a finding that applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age.
The WCAB found that the applicant's subsequent permanent disability equals 35% or more of his total disability when considered alone and without regard to occupation or age, based on the Bookout precedent excluding apportionment from the calculation of subsequent permanent disability.
Official decision · page 11 →
All 499 decisions on this issue →
Also on this
About Permanent disability rating
What is a permanent disability rating on the WCAB?
The number — whole-person impairment, the Guides, rebuttal — not the industrial/non-industrial split. These decisions are how panels treated that number. They are not a schedule of what a case is worth.
Where do Almaraz/Guzman and Kite fit?
Almaraz/Guzman is rebutting a strict Guides rating; Kite is adding rather than combining impairments. Those doctrine pages quote later panels applying those holdings. This issue page is the broader PD-rating dispute set.