What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Defendant challenging apportionment finding for left knee; WCJ decision dated 11/26/2024 awarding 51% permanent disability and apportionment to low back but not to left knee; petition timely filed and transmitted to Appeals Board on 12/18/2024; Appeals Board timely acted on petition on 2/18/2025.
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 court found that the PQME Dr. Slutzker's apportionment report was ambiguous and insufficient to establish valid apportionment for the left knee; defendant failed to clarify the apportionment findings despite having the opportunity, thus not meeting the burden of proof.
From the decision · page 6However this was not persuasive to the Court to put 75% of the left knee apportionment on the subsequent injuries. The doctor did not parcel out impairment between the patellar fracture, which he reported to be 100% industrial, and the "other left knee impairments" which are ambiguous. The PQME also did not say how he determined that only 25% of these "other" impairments were industrial when he also reported that she said her pain was already at 7/10 before the Costco fall. These are ambiguities that it was Defendant's burden to resolve. Defendants had every opportunity to clarify Dr. Slutzker's apportionment findings so that his conclusions would constitute substantial medical evidence on that issue but chose not to. It is not this Court's duty to assist a party in meeting their burden of proof. San Bernardino Comm. Hospital vs. WCAB (McKernan) 74 Cal. App. 4th 928, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516, 64 Cal. Comp. Cases 986 (1999)