What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant challenging the denial of apportionment; WCJ report recommending denial of reconsideration; WCAB panel decision denying the petition.
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.
ApportionmentApplicant prevailedneck · back
The WCJ and WCAB found that the medical opinion of Dr. Renbaum on apportionment was not substantial medical evidence because it lacked detailed reasoning and explanation required by law, thus denying apportionment and awarding permanent disability without apportionment.
From the decision · page 2We now turn to the merits. The defendant has the burden of proof on apportionment. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Pullman Kellogg v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (Normand) (1980) 26 Cal.3d 450, 456 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 170]; Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kopping) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (Escobedo) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 613 (Appeals Board en banc).) To meet this burden, the defendant "must demonstrate that, based upon reasonable medical probability, there is a legal basis for apportionment." (Gay v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gay) (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 555, 564 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 817]; see also Escobedo, supra, at p. 620.)