ADJ10684126 · September 8, 2026

The WCJ found 50% apportionment based on QME Dr. Perry Secor's well-reasoned and persuasive medical reports, resulting in 34% permanent disability after apportionment. Applicant challenged this relying on PTP Dr. Andrew Merritt's reports and vocational expert evidence, but the WCAB preliminarily found Dr. Merritt's reports unratable and vocational evidence insufficient. The WCAB granted reconsideration to further review the merits and entire record.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award 1 issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2026. Therein, the WCJ found that applicant sustained admitted injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, while employed April 21, 2015. The WCJ further found that the injury herein caused 34% permanent disability, after 50% apportionment. Applicant contends that the WCJ should have relied on vocational expert evidence to find her 100% permanently disabled, with no apportionment. We did not receive an answer. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and the contents of the Report, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. Based upon our preliminary review of the record, we will grant the Petition for Reconsideration. Our order granting the Petition for Reconsideration is not a final order, and we will order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law. Once a final decision after

Applicant had pre-existing back conditions including scoliosis and lumbar fusion surgery prior to the industrial injury on April 21, 2015.

Favours Defendant prevailed

These pre-existing conditions formed the basis for 50% apportionment to non-industrial causes by QME Dr. Perry Secor, supported by substantial medical evidence.

From the decision · page 5The trial record reveals that the Applicant suffered from pre-existing back pain for a period of five to ten years. This pre-existing back pain led in September 2013 to a lumbar fusion with insertion of rods into her back. (MOH/SOE 4/1/2026, page 5:7-11; Exhibit 4, page 2.) The pre-injury surgery consisted of multilevel fusion L3 to sacrum with laminectomy and posterior instrumentation. (Joint Exhibit 3, PQME report Dr. Perry Secor 6/22/2018, page 4)

QME Dr. Perry Secor's medical reports were found well-reasoned and persuasive, supporting 50% apportionment and 34% permanent disability after apportionment.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCJ and WCAB relied on Dr. Secor's findings as substantial evidence to uphold apportionment and disability rating.

From the decision · page 7The court in its Opinion found Dr. Secor’s medical reporting to constitute substantial medical evidence and his findings to be well-reasoned and persuasive. Based upon the medical reporting of Dr. Secor, the court determined 50% of applicant’s impairment is apportioned to pre-existing non-industrial causation and 50% to the effects of Applicant’s industrial injury of April 21, 2015. Based upon the medical findings of Dr. Secor, the Court found applicant to have suffered 34% permanent disability, after apportionment.

PTP Dr. Andrew Merritt's reports were found unratable and not substantial evidence, missing significant findings and contradicted by QME Dr. Secor's reports.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The court rejected Dr. Merritt's opinions and vocational evidence relying on them, undermining applicant's challenge to apportionment and disability rating.

From the decision · page 4As early as a hearing in 2018, the parties engaged in discussion with WCJ Leviton, who noted in the Minutes of Hearing regarding the discussion that Dr. Merritt’s reports “…do not comply w/ work comp Regs…” (Minutes of Hearing 11/15/2018, EAMS DOC ID#68673161) Eleven days later, at the Cross-examination of QME Secor, defense counsel commented “I think we have a Minute Order indicating that Dr. Merritt’s report is not substantial evidence…” (Joint Exhibit 4, Deposition of Dr. Secor 11/26/2018, page 39:7-17) In 2026, the parties stipulated that PTP Merritt’s reporting was unratable pursuant to guidelines utilized within the workers’ compensation system.

Vocational expert Ray Largo's reports were found not substantial evidence and rejected, as they relied on Dr. Merritt's unsupported conclusions and flawed assumptions.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This weakened the applicant's argument for 100% permanent disability and no apportionment.

Found 50% apportionment to pre-existing non-industrial conditions including scoliosis and lumbar spine disease, and 50% to industrial injury effects, resulting in 34% permanent disability after apportionment. His reports were found well-reasoned and persuasive by the WCJ and WCAB.

His 2018 and subsequent reports detailed pre-existing conditions and supported 50% apportionment, which the WCJ and WCAB found substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 3Petitioner challenges two of the Court’s Findings: 1) Petitioner challenges Paragraph 10 of the Findings of Fact in which the Court determines that based upon the findings of QME Dr. Perry Secor, 50% non-industrial apportionment applies; 2) Petitioner also challenges the Court’s finding that Applicant has suffered 34% permanent disability after apportionment. (Petition For Reconsideration, page 2:1-9)

Reports were found unratable and not substantial evidence, missing significant findings and contradicted by QME Secor's reports. Vocational expert evidence relying on Merritt was also rejected.

His reports did not comply with work comp regulations and were found unratable and unpersuasive by the WCJ and WCAB.

From the decision · page 4As early as a hearing in 2018, the parties engaged in discussion with WCJ Leviton, who noted in the Minutes of Hearing regarding the discussion that Dr. Merritt’s reports “…do not comply w/ work comp Regs…” (Minutes of Hearing 11/15/2018, EAMS DOC ID#68673161) Eleven days later, at the Cross-examination of QME Secor, defense counsel commented “I think we have a Minute Order indicating that Dr. Merritt’s report is not substantial evidence…” (Joint Exhibit 4, Deposition of Dr. Secor 11/26/2018, page 39:7-17) In 2026, the parties stipulated that PTP Merritt’s reporting was unratable pursuant to guidelines utilized within the workers’ compensation system.

Labor Code Section 4663(c)

Labor Code Section 4663(c) prescribes the standards for apportionment determinations by reporting physicians and the WCAB.

Both the reporting physician and the WCAB must determine the percentage of permanent disability caused by industrial injury versus other factors.

From the decision · page 8“Section 4663(c) not only prescribes what determinations a reporting physician must make with respect to apportionment, it also prescribes what standards the WCAB must use in deciding apportionment; that is, both a reporting physician and the WCAB must make determinations of what percentage of the permanent disability was directly caused by the industrial injury and what percentage was caused by other factors.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) (en banc) Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 607)

Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) (en banc) Cal.Comp.Cases 604

Substantial evidence means evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value. Medical opinions must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, not speculative, based on pertinent facts and adequate examination, and set forth reasoning.

Applied to evaluate the sufficiency of medical and vocational evidence for apportionment and permanent disability determinations.

From the decision · page 20(1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza, supra; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) “The term ‘substantial evidence’ means evidence which, if true, has probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petition, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case.

PTP Dr. Merritt's reports were found unratable and not substantial evidence, missing significant findings and contradicted by QME Dr. Secor's reports.

From the decision · page 4As early as a hearing in 2018, the parties engaged in discussion with WCJ Leviton, who noted in the Minutes of Hearing regarding the discussion that Dr. Merritt’s reports “…do not comply w/ work comp Regs…” (Minutes of Hearing 11/15/2018, EAMS DOC ID#68673161) Eleven days later, at the Cross-examination of QME Secor, defense counsel commented “I think we have a Minute Order indicating that Dr. Merritt’s report is not substantial evidence…” (Joint Exhibit 4, Deposition of Dr. Secor 11/26/2018, page 39:7-17) In 2026, the parties stipulated that PTP Merritt’s reporting was unratable pursuant to guidelines utilized within the workers’ compensation system.

Vocational expert Ray Largo's reports were found not substantial evidence and rejected by the court, as they relied on Dr. Merritt's unsupported conclusions and flawed assumptions.