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's finding of 100% permanent total disability is supported by substantial medical evidence including AME and vocational expert opinions, and the Appeals Board affirms the award of permanent total disability indemnity and medical-legal costs.
From the decision · page 117 (WCJ) found that applicant's admitted December 20, 2005 injury to his low back, psyche and right knee
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained a December 20, 2005 injury to low back, psyche, and right knee causing temporary total disability and permanent total disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This injury and resulting disabilities form the basis for the permanent total disability award.
From the decision · page 117 (WCJ) found that applicant's admitted December 20, 2005 injury to his low back, psyche and right knee
AME Dr. Fredric Newton opined applicant is permanently totally disabled and unable to work due to combined spinal, knee, and psychiatric conditions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
His medical opinion was substantial evidence supporting the permanent total disability finding.
From the decision · page 310 Applicant was evaluated by agreed medical evaluator (AME) Fredric Newton, M.D. in the field
Treating psychologist Dr. Peter R. Russell's report showed serious psychiatric impairment supporting permanent total disability and medical-legal costs were awarded for his report.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The treating physician's credible report reinforced the disability finding and justified medical-legal expense award.
From the decision · page 53 Applicant's treating psychologist, Peter R. Russell, Ph.D., disagreed with Dr. Perez' assessment
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.
Applicant is permanently totally disabled and unable to return to work in any capacity due to spinal, knee, and psychiatric problems.
The opinion is substantial evidence supporting permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 310 Applicant was evaluated by agreed medical evaluator (AME) Fredric Newton, M.D. in the field
Applicant reached permanent and stationary status with psychiatric injury causing permanent total disability.
The opinion supports the finding of permanent total disability.
From the decision · page 421 The parties selected Robert Perez, Ph.D., as the AME in psychology. After initially finding the
Applicant has serious impairment in activities of daily living and psychiatric symptoms supporting permanent total disability.
The treating physician's report was relied upon and medical-legal costs awarded for his report.
From the decision · page 53 Applicant's treating psychologist, Peter R. Russell, Ph.D., disagreed with Dr. Perez' assessment
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4650
Labor Code section 4650 requires commencement of permanent disability indemnity payments within 14 days after last temporary disability payment, with reasonable estimate if extent unknown.
Applied to require timely permanent disability payments and reasonable estimate when extent unknown.
From the decision · page 91 section 4650 addressed the timing of either temporary or permanent disability payments.5
Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)
Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) limits temporary disability indemnity to 104 weeks.
Applied to limit temporary disability indemnity duration.
From the decision · page 119 permanent total disability (100%). Although under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)2 applicant's
Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. requires vocational feasibility to deny permanent total disability.
Applied to defendant's argument on vocational feasibility and permanent total disability denial.
From the decision · page 211 award is based on speculation rather than substantial medical evidence and that applicant is vocationally
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility of medical opinions of AME Dr. Newton and treating psychologist Dr. Russell
From the decision · page 79 In this case, the opinion of Dr. Newton, the AME in neurology, that applicant is permanently
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.