What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ decision rescinded and matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings and new decision
Petition for reconsideration granted; WCJ decision rescinded and matter returned for further proceedings consistent with opinion
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.
No findings were made on the cumulative trauma claim; reconsideration granted to establish a proper record on this issue.
From the decision · page 6As noted above, the record is incomplete. There are no stipulations or issues set forth regarding the claimed cumulative trauma claim through May 20, 2013 (ADJ12916393). Likewise, Judge Aldrich did not make any findings regarding ADJ12916393. Though, Dr. Isono did not find a cumulative trauma injury on an orthopedic basis (Joint Exhibit GG, at page 1), it does not appear that Dr. Curry specifically addressed whether there was a psychiatric cumulative trauma injury. The undersigned believes that the WCAB should grant reconsideration and return the cases so that a proper record can be established.
Reconsideration granted to develop record on whether psychiatric impairment should be added or combined with orthopedic impairment pursuant to Vigil en banc decision.
From the decision · page 4b. Petitioner contends that the psychiatric disability provided by Dr. Curry should have been combined with the orthopedic disability by addition pursuant to Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 or in the alternative the record should be developed in light of the recent decision in Vigil v. County of Kern, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (en banc).
Reconsideration granted to further develop record on vocational evidence and permanent total disability claim.
From the decision · page 4c. Petitioner contends that the opinions of both vocational experts find that applicant is not able to compete in the open job market and should have been followed finding applicant permanent totally disabled or in the alternative the record should be developed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This correction warranted granting reconsideration to amend the award.
No findings or stipulations were made regarding the cumulative trauma claim in ADJ12916393, leaving the record incomplete.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of findings required reconsideration and remand to develop a proper record.
From the decision · page 6As noted above, the record is incomplete. There are no stipulations or issues set forth regarding the claimed cumulative trauma claim through May 20, 2013 (ADJ12916393). Likewise, Judge Aldrich did not make any findings regarding ADJ12916393. Though, Dr. Isono did not find a cumulative trauma injury on an orthopedic basis (Joint Exhibit GG, at page 1), it does not appear that Dr. Curry specifically addressed whether there was a psychiatric cumulative trauma injury. The undersigned believes that the WCAB should grant reconsideration and return the cases so that a proper record can be established.
Dr. Curry's opinion favored adding psychiatric impairment to orthopedic impairment rather than combining, contrary to the WCJ's use of the combined values chart.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This difference in opinion required further development of the record under the Vigil en banc decision.
From the decision · page 4b. Petitioner contends that the psychiatric disability provided by Dr. Curry should have been combined with the orthopedic disability by addition pursuant to Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 or in the alternative the record should be developed in light of the recent decision in Vigil v. County of Kern, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (en banc).
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.
Dr. Curry opined that psychiatric disability should be added to orthopedic disability rather than combined, based on work limitations.
Dr. Curry's opinion supports adding impairments rather than combining, citing work limitations as basis.
From the decision · page 4b. Petitioner contends that the psychiatric disability provided by Dr. Curry should have been combined with the orthopedic disability by addition pursuant to Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 or in the alternative the record should be developed in light of the recent decision in Vigil v. County of Kern, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (en banc).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5909
Governs timing and notice requirements for petitions for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Former Labor Code section 59091 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213
Relevant to combining psychiatric and orthopedic disability ratings.
From the decision · page 4b. Petitioner contends that the psychiatric disability provided by Dr. Curry should have been combined with the orthopedic disability by addition pursuant to Athens Administrators v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 or in the alternative the record should be developed in light of the recent decision in Vigil v. County of Kern, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (en banc).
Vigil v. County of Kern, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (en banc)
Allows rebuttal of combined values chart and addition of impairments under certain conditions.
From the decision · page 6Nevertheless, Dr. Curry last statement on whether the impairments should be added, was based on his opinion that "adding would more accurately express her work limitations" (Joint Exhibit 00, at page 4). This of course is inconsistent
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B)
Defines catastrophic injury and permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 5On September 6, 2024, Judge Aldrich issued her decision under both case numbers. However, Judge Aldrich only issued findings of facts with regard to the specific injury in ADJ9341267. Judge Aldrich made the following findings: 1) applicant sustained injury arising out of and the course of employment to the psyche; 2) that applicant suffered a catastrophic injury pursuant to Labor Code section 4660. l (c)(2)(B); 3) thit applicant's injury resulted in 89% permanent disability after apportionment; 4) that applicant was not entitled to future medical care for the psyche; 5) that applicant did not rebut the permanent disability schedule with vocational rehabilitation evidence; and 6) that the impairments should be combined using the combined values chart, not the addition method.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 3202.3
Pertains to cumulative trauma injury claims.
From the decision · page 6As noted above, the record is incomplete. There are no stipulations or issues set forth regarding the claimed cumulative trauma claim through May 20, 2013 (ADJ12916393). Likewise, Judge Aldrich did not make any findings regarding ADJ12916393. Though, Dr. Isono did not find a cumulative trauma injury on an orthopedic basis (Joint Exhibit GG, at page 1), it does not appear that Dr. Curry specifically addressed whether there was a psychiatric cumulative trauma injury. The undersigned believes that the WCAB should grant reconsideration and return the cases so that a proper record can be established.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
The record is incomplete with no findings on cumulative trauma claim and no stipulations on ADJ12916393.
From the decision · page 6As noted above, the record is incomplete. There are no stipulations or issues set forth regarding the claimed cumulative trauma claim through May 20, 2013 (ADJ12916393). Likewise, Judge Aldrich did not make any findings regarding ADJ12916393. Though, Dr. Isono did not find a cumulative trauma injury on an orthopedic basis (Joint Exhibit GG, at page 1), it does not appear that Dr. Curry specifically addressed whether there was a psychiatric cumulative trauma injury. The undersigned believes that the WCAB should grant reconsideration and return the cases so that a proper record can be established.
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.