What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied; original Findings, Award, and Orders affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the April 11, 2025 Findings, Award, and Orders; WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation to deny the petition; the Appeals Board timely acted on the petition on June 30, 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.
ApportionmentDefendant prevailedcervical spine · lumbar spine
The WCJ found Dr. Simpkins's apportionment opinion conclusory and lacking detailed reasoning as required by Escobedo and Yeager, thus not substantial evidence; the Appeals Board denied reconsideration affirming this finding.
From the decision · page 5In the instant matter, Dr. Simpkins indicated that for the cervical spine, he would apportion "25% of the current level of impairment to the presence of age-related degeneration, 20% of the current level of impairment to preexisting injury, and 55% of the current level of impairment to the direct result of the injuries arising out of and occurring in the course of her employment on a continuous trauma basis." (Exhibit 1, p. 20.) Dr. Simpkins explained that "available diagnostic studies reveal[ed] moderate to severe spondylosis" and that "at least two MVAs" resulted in "injury to the cervical spine[.]" (Ibid.) Reference to the specific dates and findings of the alleged studies were not indicated. Specifics regarding the dates of the MVAs and corresponding injuries and diagnoses were also not provided.