Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code 4660; Brodie v. WCAB; Fitzpatrick; Guzman
Permanent disability is determined by whole person impairment under AMA Guides and PDRS, considering future earning capacity (LC 4660, Brodie, Fitzpatrick, Guzman).
Applied to assess permanent disability rating and rebuttal of scheduled rating.
From the decision · page 9Section 4660 provides that permanent disability is determined by consideration of whole
person impairment within the four corners of the AMA Guides, as applied by the Permanent
Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) in light of the medical record and the effect of the injury on
the worker's future earning capacity. (Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 40 Cal.4th
1313, 1321 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 565] ["permanent disability payments are intended to compensate
workers for both physical loss and the loss of some or all of their future earning capacity"];
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fitzpatrick) (2018)
27 Cal.App.5th 607, 614 [83 Cal.Comp.Cases 1680] (Fitzpatrick); Milpitas Unified School Dist.
v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]
(Guzman).)
LeBoeuf v. WCAB; Ogilvie
Scheduled rating rebutted by showing greater loss of future earning capacity or rehabilitation impairment (LeBoeuf, Ogilvie).
Applied to support rebuttal of strict scheduled rating by applicant.
From the decision · page 10Another way the cases have long recognized that a scheduled rating has been
effectively rebutted is when the injury to the employee impairs his or her
rehabilitation, and for that reason, the employee's diminished future earning
capacity is greater than reflected in the employee's scheduled rating. This is the
rule expressed in LeBoeuf v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 234
[193 Cal.Rptr. 547, 666 P.2d 989]. In LeBoeuf, an injured worker sought to
demonstrate that, due to the residual effects of his work-related injuries, he could
not be retrained for suitable meaningful employment. (Id. at pp. 237-238.) Our
Supreme Court concluded that it was error to preclude LeBoeuf from making
such a showing, and held that "the fact that an injured employee is precluded
from the option of receiving rehabilitation benefits should also be taken into
account in the assessment of an injured employee's permanent disability rating."
Kite; Vigil
Impairments generally combined using combined values chart (CVC), but addition may be used if ADLs impacted by impairments do not overlap or amplify impact (Kite, Vigil).
Applied to support addition of impairments rather than CVC in this case.
From the decision · page 10Moreover, pursuant to Fitzpatrick, supra, impairments "are generally combined" using the
combined values chart (CVC) found in the permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS). However,
the "scheduled rating is not absolute" and other methodologies may be used to calculate permanent
disability. (Id. at p. 614.) Thus, while the PDRS is prima facie evidence of an employee's
permanent disability, it is rebuttable. (Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v.
Milpitas Unified School Dist. (Almaraz-Guzman II) (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, 1106
(Appeals Board en banc); see Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 613
(Appeals Board en banc); City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Cannon) (2013)
222 Cal.App.4th 1360, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1.) Ultimately, however, the goal in rating impairments
is accuracy. (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman III)
(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].)