What the panel ordered
WCAB affirmed the November 4, 2025 joint Findings, Award, and Order except amended to exclude right shoulder and admitted Defendant's Exhibit C into evidence.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's November 4, 2025 Findings, Award, and Order; WCJ recommended granting reconsideration only to amend findings to exclude right shoulder; WCAB granted reconsideration to amend findings and admit Defendant's Exhibit C into evidence.
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.
The WCJ found permanent total disability based on combined industrial injuries to multiple body parts with substantial medical and vocational evidence supporting total disability and no apportionment to non-industrial causes. The WCAB affirmed the joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates, excluding the right shoulder, and found defendant failed to prove apportionment of work restrictions.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings, Award, and Order" (F&A) issued on November 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that while employed by applicant as a home care aide, applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 6, 2019, to her right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, right wrist, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 19, 2019 while employed by defendant to her low back, right ankle, head, right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ found that the combined effects of the industrial injuries resulted in applicant sustaining a single combined award of permanent total disability. The WCJ issued an award to applicant, less an award of attorney's fees according to a DEU calculation.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained industrial injuries on May 6, 2019 and March 19, 2019 to multiple body parts including right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, and right ankle.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These combined injuries formed the basis for the permanent total disability award.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the "Joint Findings, Award, and Order" (F&A) issued on November 4, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that while employed by applicant as a home care aide, applicant sustained an industrial injury on May 6, 2019, to her right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, right wrist, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ further found that applicant sustained industrial injury on March 19, 2019 while employed by defendant to her low back, right ankle, head, right wrist, bladder, bowel, cervical and lumbar spine, psyche, right hand, headaches, sleep dysfunction, right shoulder and right ankle. The WCJ found that the combined effects of the industrial injuries resulted in applicant sustaining a single combined award of permanent total disability. The WCJ issued an award to applicant, less an award of attorney's fees according to a DEU calculation.
Medical evidence from Dr. Kuyt showed neurologic impairment to bladder and bowel caused by additive effects of both industrial injuries, with impairment 100% industrial and apportionment between injuries speculative.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported the joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates.
From the decision · page 14While it may be true that other doctors apportioned applicant's disability, we find the reporting of Dr. Kuyt constitutes substantial medical evidence on the issue of apportionment. Dr. Kuyt adequately explained that the additive effects of both injuries contributed to the nerve damage affecting the bladder. Dr. Kuyt clearly explained that suggesting what percentage each injury contributed to nerve damage would be speculative. Thus, applicant is entitled to a joint and several award of permanent disability across both dates of injury.
Applicant's vocational expert found applicant not feasible for vocational rehabilitation and unable to compete on the open labor market, while defendant's expert provided no opinion on these issues.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supported finding of permanent total disability based on vocational evidence and failure of defendant to prove apportionment of work restrictions.
From the decision · page 13Here, applicant's vocational expert conducted vocational testing, examined applicant, reviewed the industrial work restrictions assigned by the medical doctors, and found that applicant was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation and could not compete on the open labor market. The opinion of applicant's expert appears well-reasoned.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Authored one report; assigned GAF score of 53 predominantly caused by industrial injuries; did not discuss psychiatric work restrictions.
From the decision · page 3Lexi Welanetz-Bursin, Psy.D., (psychology) who authored one report in evidence
Diagnosed post-traumatic headaches, cervicogenic headaches, sleep onset and maintenance insomnia, and nightmare disorder; found disorders 100% industrial; discussed work restrictions.
From the decision · page 3Pedram Navab, D.O., (neurology & sleep medicine) authored two reports in evidence.
Authored two reports and was deposed regarding applicant's industrial injuries.
From the decision · page 21. Medical Evidence Applicant was seen by the following qualified medical evaluators (QME): Daniel Orlovich, M.D., (pain medicine) who authored two reports in evidence and was deposed. (Applicant's Exhibits 1 through 3.)
Diagnosed neurologic impairment to bladder and bowel due to combined effects of two industrial injuries; impairment was 100% industrial; could not apportion between injury dates; explained additive effects of injuries on nerve damage affecting bladder.
His report constitutes substantial medical evidence on apportionment; additive effects of injuries contributed to nerve damage; apportionment between injuries would be speculative.
From the decision · page 3Fred Kyut, M.D., (urology) who authored two reports in evidence and was deposed.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4663(c)
Labor Code section 4663(c) requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination of permanent disability.
The Board applied this standard to require apportionment determinations and to evaluate apportionment evidence.
From the decision · page 11(c) In order for a physician's report to be considered complete on the issue of permanent disability, the report must include an apportionment determination. A physician shall make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by other factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, including prior industrial injuries.
Benson v. Permanente Med. Group (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 1620
Benson v. Permanente Med. Group (2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 1620 explains joint and several awards of permanent disability across multiple injury dates when disabilities cannot reasonably be parceled out.
The Board applied Benson to affirm a joint and several award of permanent disability across both injury dates.
From the decision · page 132. Apportionment under Benson In our en banc opinion in Benson, we explained that limited situations may exist where a joint and several award of permanent disability may issue across multiple dates of injury. (Benson v. Permanente Med. Group, (2007), 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 1620, 1634 (Appeals Board en banc), (emphasis added); aff'd Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535.) Where some aspects of the industrially caused permanent disability form two or more separate industrial injuries that cannot reasonably be parceled out, then a combined joint and several award of permanent disability must issue even though other aspects of the industrially caused permanent disability from those injuries can be parceled out with reasonable medical probability. (See, e.g. Alea North American Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Herrera) (2018) 84 Cal. Comp. Cases 17 [2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 123] (writ den.); Flowserve Corp. v. Workers'
Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46
Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 requires vocational evidence to address apportionment of work restrictions for permanent total disability.
The Board applied Nunes to require vocational evidence addressing apportionment of work restrictions and found defendant failed to prove apportionment.
From the decision · page 13Nunes I further held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make medical determinations in a case, including determinations on the issue of apportionment. The Board further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability, and that vocational evidence must address apportionment, but that a vocational evaluator may not opine on issues that require expert medical evidence. (See, id.) The Board affirmed these holdings in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (August 29, 2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894] ("Nunes II").
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's vocational expert conducted testing and found applicant not feasible for vocational rehabilitation and unable to compete on the open labor market.
From the decision · page 13Here, applicant's vocational expert conducted vocational testing, examined applicant, reviewed the industrial work restrictions assigned by the medical doctors, and found that applicant was not feasible for vocational rehabilitation and could not compete on the open labor market. The opinion of applicant's expert appears well-reasoned.
Defendant's vocational expert provided no opinion on rehabilitation or open labor market competition, only critiqued applicant's expert's findings.
From the decision · page 13Furthermore, as explained below, the opinions of defendant's vocational expert are of little value as defendant's expert provided no opinion at all on whether applicant was capable of vocational rehabilitation or capable of competing on the open labor market. Defendant's expert limited her opinion to criticizing the basis for applicant's expert opinion. We do not find these criticism's convincing.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.