ADJ11994125 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; Findings and Award affirmed except amended to find 59% permanent disability; Award amended accordingly.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on February 2, 2022, regarding permanent disability rating and apportionment.

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.

Permanent disability ratingApplicant prevailedlow back · left knee · left ankle

The Board found substantial evidence in QME Dr. Cremata's well-reasoned reports and deposition supporting the addition of impairment factors rather than combining them, resulting in a 59% permanent disability rating.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on February 2, 2022, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her low back, left knee, and left ankle, and that the injury caused 52% permanent disability.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code Section 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274; Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312; Bstandig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 988; Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc)

Permanent disability rating must be supported by substantial evidence including well-reasoned medical reports and testimony.

The Board applied these standards to find Dr. Cremata's reports and deposition constituted substantial evidence supporting the permanent disability rating.

From the decision · page 4Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (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. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Medical proof is required on issues such as diagnosis, prognosis, disability, and treatment that are beyond the bounds of ordinary knowledge. (See Bstandig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 988, 996 [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) When a physician's report is well-reasoned, is not speculative, is based on an adequate history and examination, and sets forth the reasoning behind the physician's opinion, not merely his or her conclusions; the report constitutes substantial evidence. (Granado v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 399 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 647]; McAllister v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 660]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).)

AMA Guides 5th Edition (2001)

The AMA Guides 5th Edition provide methods for combining multiple impairments, allowing addition of impairments when no overlap exists.

The Board applied AMA Guides and case law (Athens Administrators v. WCAB (Kite)) to support adding impairments due to no overlap and distinct functional impacts.

From the decision · page 3Impairment, 5th Edition (2001) (AMA Guides):

ADJ11994125 · April 18, 2022

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page