ADJ11183397 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further reviewp. 10

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration from WCJ's Joint Findings and Award finding 76% permanent disability in each of three cases

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Cumulative traumaRemandedinternal system · sleep · right elbow · right wrist · right shoulder · left shoulder · neck · hypertension · stomach (GERD)

Record may not be complete regarding the number of cumulative injuries; WCJ found three continuous traumas inextricably intertwined with no basis for legal apportionment

From the decision · page 8Here, it appears from our preliminary review that the record may not be complete regarding the issues of the number of cumulative injuries and apportionment. We also note a lack of clarity in the drafting of the Joint Findings and Award regarding permanent disability.

Apportionment

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Lab. Code, § 4663

Apportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation under Lab. Code § 4663

Defendant has burden under § 4663(c) and § 5705 to establish approximate percentage of permanent disability caused by factors other than industrial injury

From the decision · page 5Section 4663 provides that “[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation.” (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) A doctor who prepares a report addressing the issue of permanent disability due to a claimed industrial injury must address the issue of causation of the permanent disability. (Lab.

Medical opinion on apportionment must be supported by substantial evidence and framed in terms of reasonable medical probability

Medical opinion must disclose familiarity with apportionment concepts, describe exact nature of apportionable disability, and set forth basis for opinion

From the decision · page 5The report by the physician addressing the issue of apportionment must be supported by substantial evidence. ( Escobedo, supra, 70 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 620, citing Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.

Western Growers Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Austin); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. WCAB (Coltharp)

Question of how many cumulative injuries sustained is question of fact for WCAB

If employee returns to work after period of industrially-caused disability and repetitive work activities result in new injurious trauma, there are two separate cumulative injuries that cannot be merged

From the decision · page 6The issue of how many cumulative injuries an employee sustained is a question of fact for the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. ( Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 234-235 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 323]; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.

ADJ11183397 · June 8, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page