ADJ10598932 · September 28, 2026

The WCJ found 58% permanent disability but denied rebuttal of the PDRS through vocational evidence due to lack of substantial evidence from the vocational expert. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further review the merits.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 25, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, GERD, and psyche while employed as a sheriff deputy during the period from October 3, 2007 through September 7, 2016. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 58% permanent disability and need for further medical treatment. Applicant contends that the WCJ should have relied on medical and vocational evidence, the catastrophic nature of applicant’s injury, and the holding in LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 587] to find a higher level of permanent disability. Defendant filed an Answer.

Vocational expert Paul Broadus' report was not substantial evidence due to reliance on speculation and ignoring AMEs' work restrictions.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This led to denial of rebuttal of the PDRS and affected the permanent disability rating outcome.

Provided work restrictions of light duty and lifting restriction of 10-15 pounds with psyche restriction of no patrol duty; did not find failed back surgery; symptoms improved after surgery; did not support adding impairments beyond combined rating.

The physician's work restrictions and findings were relied upon to assess permanent disability and rebuttal of PDRS.

From the decision · page 6Petitioner argues that the undersigned failed to consider factors 1 through 3 and factor 5 that are identified in Wilson. With respect to factor 1, the undersigned acknowledges that that there was intense and serious treatment received by Petitioner in the form of a back surgery. With respect to factor 2, the ultimate outcome once Petitioner was declared permanent and stationary is subjective. According to orthopedic AME Dr. Silbart, Petitioner did not have a failed back surgery; in fact, her symptoms improved after the surgery. (See Exhibit J1 at p. 12: 12-22.) From a work perspective, Applicant was given orthopedic work restrictions of light duty and a lifting restriction of 10-15 pounds with a psyche restriction of no patrol duty with no other restrictions. (Exhibit J1 at p. 7-8; Exhibit J8 at p. 32.) While Petitioner’s VR expert improperly concluded that she would not be amenable to vocational rehabilitation, defense VR expert Howard Goldfarb identified numerous occupations that were feasible for Petitioner by applying the work restrictions prescribed by the AMEs. Accordingly, the overall outcome after being declared permanent and stationary was not found by the undersigned to be

Diagnosed somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain; did not support adding impairments beyond combined rating; noted inaccurate claim about sex life ending; work restrictions included no patrol duty.

The physician's diagnosis and work restrictions were relied upon to assess permanent disability and rebuttal of PDRS.

From the decision · page 6Petitioner argues that the undersigned failed to consider factors 1 through 3 and factor 5 that are identified in Wilson. With respect to factor 1, the undersigned acknowledges that that there was intense and serious treatment received by Petitioner in the form of a back surgery. With respect to factor 2, the ultimate outcome once Petitioner was declared permanent and stationary is subjective. According to orthopedic AME Dr. Silbart, Petitioner did not have a failed back surgery; in fact, her symptoms improved after the surgery. (See Exhibit J1 at p. 12: 12-22.) From a work perspective, Applicant was given orthopedic work restrictions of light duty and a lifting restriction of 10-15 pounds with a psyche restriction of no patrol duty with no other restrictions. (Exhibit J1 at p. 7-8; Exhibit J8 at p. 32.) While Petitioner’s VR expert improperly concluded that she would not be amenable to vocational rehabilitation, defense VR expert Howard Goldfarb identified numerous occupations that were feasible for Petitioner by applying the work restrictions prescribed by the AMEs. Accordingly, the overall outcome after being declared permanent and stationary was not found by the undersigned to be

LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234

An injured employee's inability to be retrained for suitable employment should be considered in permanent disability rating.

Cited by Applicant to argue for higher permanent disability rating due to vocational non-amenability.

From the decision · page 8Another way the cases have long recognized that a scheduled rating has been effectively rebutted is when the injury to the employee impairs his or her rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee’s diminished future earning capacity is greater than reflected in the employee’s scheduled rating. This is the rule expressed in LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 234 [193 Cal.Rptr. 547, 666 P.2d 989]. In LeBoeuf, an injured worker sought to demonstrate that, due to the residual effects of his work-related injuries, he could not be retrained for suitable meaningful employment. (Id. at pp. 237-238.) Our Supreme Court concluded that it was error to preclude LeBoeuf from making such a showing, and held that “the fact that an injured employee is precluded from the option of receiving rehabilitation benefits should also be taken into account in the assessment of an injured employee’s permanent disability rating.”

Labor Code section 4660.1

Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of permanent disability percentage but can be rebutted by vocational evidence showing non-amenability to rehabilitation.

Applied to assess whether vocational evidence rebutted PDRS in this case.

Vocational expert Paul Broadus' report was found not to be substantial evidence because it relied on speculation, uncited studies, and ignored AMEs' work restrictions.