Nunes — vocational expert opinions after 2013

How later panels applied it

Newest released decisions whose legal-standard extraction named this holding. Each quotes the passage and links to the official PDF. The leading case is cited the way courts cite it; our own cards stay ADJ, date, and issue. Litigated tail — not a win rate.

• ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.14(a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs as between the body parts rated; or (b) there is overlap, but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. (Vigil, supra, 89 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 694.) In the en banc decision in Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741, we held that section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make an apportionment determination and prescribes the standard for apportionment, but that the Labor Code makes no statutory provision for "vocational apportionment." However, we further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability. While the PDRS is presumptively correct (see Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 826 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]), "a rating obtained pursuant to the PDRS may be rebutted by showing an applicant's diminished future earning capacity is greater than that reflected in the PDRS." (Nunes I, supra, 88 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 749.) Among the methods described for challenging a rating obtained under the PDRS was establishing that "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." (Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

  Vocational evidence must address apportionment and cannot substitute impermissible vocational apportionment for medical apportionment.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ9195893 · 2026-04-01 · San Diego District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.11II. APPORTIONMENT Apportionment is the process utilized to segregate permanent disability or the residuals caused by an industrial injury from those attributable to other industrial injuries or to nonindustrial factors, to allocate legal responsibility fairly. (Brodie, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1321; Marsh v. Workers'Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 906, 911 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 787.].) The mere fact that a medical report assigns approximate percentages of industrial and nonindustrial causation does not make the report reliable medical evidence by itself. (E.L. Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 927-928 [71Cal.Comp.Cases 1687].) Instead, apportionment of permanent disability is "based on causation" and the "employer shall only be liable for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment." (Lab.Code, § 4663(a) and 4664(a).) "The plain reading of `causation' in this context is causation of the permanent disability." (Escobedo v.

  Applied to evaluate and reject nonindustrial apportionment in this case.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ2876196 · 2026-03-19 · Van Nuys District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.4With respect to VE evidence, pursuant to Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Appeals Board enbanc) (Nunes I), the Appeals Board held as follows:

  Applied to clarify the role of vocational evidence in permanent disability and apportionment determinations.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ108951 · 2026-03-06 · Los Angeles District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.10With respect to vocational expert evidence, pursuant to Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2023) 88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741 (Appeals Board enbanc) (Nunes I), the Appeals Board held as follows:

  Applied to reject vocational apportionment and require a supplemental report from the vocational expert.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ19551252 · 2026-02-27 · San Francisco District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.10Miry's apportionment opinion did not rise to the level of substantial evidence as that term has come to be defined within the context of Labor Code section 4663. My conclusion here is driven by the lack of analysis on the part of the QME to explain how and why he believes the nonindustrial conditions are responsible for causing twenty percent of the current disability. Although he comments on apportionment in his June 2025 report (Joint Exhibit 1), Dr. Miry's explanation boils down to a rather conclusory statement attributing 20% apportionment to applicant's probable pre-existing degeneration. In fact, Dr. Miry states applicant had no work restrictions or impacted ADLs due to back symptoms. Moreover, the QME discusses apportionment in relation to the injury itself, rather than the disability it caused.

  Defendant's burden of proof as to apportionment was not met due to lack of substantial evidence in the QME's opinion.

  Official decision · page 10 →
• ADJ12655039 · 2026-02-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.6capacity 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."

  The Board found that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence because it included work restrictions beyond those medically supported, thus the permanent total disability finding was not supported.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ12214919 · 2026-02-20 · Van Nuys District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.13Nunes I further held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make medical determinations in a case, including determinations on the issue of apportionment. The Board further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability, and that vocational evidence must address apportionment, but that a vocational evaluator may not opine on issues that require expert medical evidence. (See, id.) The Board affirmed these holdings in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (August 29, 2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894] ("Nunes II").

  The Board applied Nunes to require vocational evidence addressing apportionment of work restrictions and found defendant failed to prove apportionment.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ9159725 · 2025-12-19 · Riverside District OfficeNunes

  Determinative passage · p.9In the en banc decision in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (June 22, 2023) 2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 30 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 741] ("Nunes I"), the Appeals Board held that Labor Code section 4663 requires a reporting physician to make medical determinations in a case, including determinations on the issue of apportionment. The Board further held that vocational evidence may be used to address issues relevant to the determination of permanent disability, and that vocational evidence must address apportionment, but that a vocational evaluator may not opine on issues that require expert medical evidence. The Board affirmed these holdings in Nunes v. State of California, Dept. of Motor Vehicles (August 29, 2023) 23 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 46 [88 Cal.Comp.Cases 894] ("Nunes II").

  Applied to reject vocational expert's medical opinions and require medical evidence for apportionment

  Official decision · page 9 →