NOTE: HOW TO VIEW THE PDF LINK FOR THE PANEL DECISION ONCE YOU CLICK THRU AND LAND ON THE WEB CENTER: Be sure you have (1) registered at our web center (registration is free), and (2) signed onto your account first. If you still can't access the PDF link, please email me at Robin.E.Kobayashi@lexisnexis.com.

Permanent Disability; Rating; Diminished Future Earning Capacity. WCAB held that report of vocational expert did not constitute substantial evidence under Ogilvie II to support WCJ's determination that applicant/construction laborer with suffered 54% permanent disability and to rebut scheduled 13% permanent disability rating for applicant's injury, when expert's vocational testing, opinion and calculations did not establish individualized adjustment factor that most accurately reflected applicant's DFEC as calculations did not meet requirements of  Labor Code § 4660(b)(2) and were unsupported by applicant's actual pre-injury work history and proposed loss of post-injury earnings. See Cortez panel decision.

 

Permanent Disability; Rating; AMA Guides. WCAB affirmed WCJ's finding of 21% permanent disability as calculated using AMA Guides, when Guides provided a variety of options with regard to rating carpal tunnel syndrome, AME upon whose opinion WCJ relied in rating permanent disability chose to rate applicant's injury neurologically because, in AME's opinion, this method best reflected applicant's impairment, AME explained in detail how he evaluated applicant under Guides, including how he accounted for applicant's grip loss and pain, and WCAB found that AME and rater operated within four corners of AMA Guides in rating applicant's permanent disability as required under Almaraz/Guzman II. See Alvarez panel decision.

Discrimination; Labor Code § 132a. WCAB affirmed WCJ's finding of § 132a violation and found defendant failed to meet its burden of proving business necessity when there was no evidence that, although defendant had to reduce its workforce due to the economic downturn, applicant would have been one of the employees laid off if he had not been injured, defendant offered to keep applicant as an independent contractor doing the same work, this despite defendant's later claim that applicant was unable to continue doing the same work, and applicant was singled out for disadvantageous treatment when evidence showed defendant's standard layoff procedure was not used to terminate applicant, among other things. See Guerra panel decision.