Smith, Damien, Applicant v. GLOBAL NETWORK; EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DAMIEN SMITH, Applicant
vs.
GLOBAL NETWORK; EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants
Adjudication Number: ADJ9808526
Pomona District Office
OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
AND DECISION AFTER
RECONSIDERATION
Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 19, 2025 Findings of Fact and Award
(F&A), wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant,
while employed as a truck driver on January 7, 2015, sustained industrial injury to his psyche, left
leg, hips, lumbar spine, right ankle, right foot, toes of the right foot, shoulders, skin of the left leg,
hands, right knee, right knuckles, altered gait and internal-gastro [system]. The WCJ found in
relevant part that medical evidence did not rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS)
and that applicant sustained 80 percent permanent partial disability pursuant to the scheduled
rating.
Applicant contends that his various disabilities should be added, rather than combined, and
that insofar as the medical record did not fully address the issue of the proper method by which to
combine his disabilities, the WCJ should have ordered development of the record.
We have received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ prepared 	a Report and
Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), recommending that the Petition be
denied.
We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of
the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto.

2
Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, we will grant the petition,
rescind the F&A, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
FACTS
Applicant sustained injury to his psyche, left leg, hips, lumbar spine, right ankle, right foot,
toes of right foot, shoulders, skin of left leg, hands, right knee, right knuckles, altered gait, and
internal-gastro [system] while employed as a truck driver by defendant Global Network on
January 7, 2015. Applicant sustained original injury to his left knee and leg after stepping into a
pothole and sustaining a comminuted left tibial fracture, requiring surgical reduction and
installation of fixation hardware, later resulting in bone necrosis as a result of a MRSA infection,
and ultimately requiring an above-the-knee amputation of the left leg. (Ex. 1, Report of Ralph
Steiger, M.D., dated August 7, 2015, at p. 4.)
The parties have obtained reporting from Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs) Ralph
Steiger, M.D., in orthopedic medicine, Stanley Goodman, M.D., in psychiatry, Zain Vally-
Mahomed, M.D., in internal medicine, James Sherman, M.D., in internal medicine, and Stuart
Shear, M.D., in dermatology.
On June 24, 2025, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision in relevant part the
issue of permanent disability. The WCJ heard testimony from applicant and ordered the matter
submitted for decision the same day.
On August 19, 2025, the WCJ issued the F&A. The WCJ observed that internal medicine
QME Dr. Vally-Mahomed had opined that applicant’s medical conditions are synergistic, and as
such, the disability percentages arising therefrom should be added. (Opinion on Decision, at p. 3.)
However, because the PDRS is presumed to be correct and the opinions of the QME offered only
conclusions without underlying analysis, the WCJ determined that “[t]he medical evidence
submitted at time of trial does not rebut the 2005 PDRS and it is concluded the combined values
chart adequately calculates the level of permanent disability.” (Finding of Fact No. 6.) Based on
applicant’s scheduled ratings, the WCJ awarded 80 percent permanent partial disability. (Finding
of Fact No. 8; Award, No. a.)
Applicant’s Petition contends “that if the court felt that further analysis was needed from
[the] doctor, then the judge had a duty to develop the record….” (Petition, at p. 3:20.)

3
Defendant’s Answer responds that applicant’s Petition is skeletal and fails to cite to the
evidentiary record. (Answer, at p. 4:19.) Defendant further asserts that applicant failed to act with
diligence to remedy the evident deficiencies in the opinions expressed by Dr. Vally-Mahomed.
(Id. at p. 4:9.)
The WCJ’s Report observes that our en banc decision in Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89
Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 23] issued on June 10, 2024, and therein we
set forth the required analysis with respect to rebuttal of the presumptively correct PDRS. The
WCJ notes that “[t]he parties were in possession of that report more than a year and a half before
proceeding to trial on June 24, 2025,” that applicant requested the matter be set for hearing, and
that applicant interposed no request for development of the record prior to submission from trial.
(Report, at pp. 4-5.)
DISCUSSION
I.
Former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed
denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab.
Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
(a) 	A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals
board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a
case to the appeals board.
(b)
(1) 	When a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, the trial
judge shall provide notice to the parties of the case and the appeals board.
(2) 	For purposes of paragraph (1), service of the accompanying report,
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900, shall constitute providing
notice.
Under section 5909(a), the Appeals Board must act on a petition for reconsideration within
60 days of transmission of the case to the Appeals Board. Transmission is reflected in Events in
the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). 	Specifically, in Case Events, under
1 All further references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise noted.

4
Event Description is the phrase “Sent to Recon” and under Additional Information is the phrase
“The case is sent to the Recon board.”
Here, 	according 	to 	Events, 	the 	case 	was 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Appeals 	Board 	on
September 24, 2025, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Sunday, November 23, 2025.
The next business day that is 60 days from the date of transmission is Monday, November 24,
2025. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b).)2 This decision is issued by or on November 24,
2025, so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by section 5909(a).
Section 5909(b)(1) requires that the parties and the Appeals Board be provided with notice
of transmission of the case. Transmission of the case to the Appeals Board in EAMS provides
notice to the Appeals Board. Thus, the requirement in subdivision (1) ensures that the parties are
notified of the accurate date for the commencement of the 60-day period for the Appeals Board to
act on a petition. Section 5909(b)(2) provides that service of the Report and Recommendation shall
be notice of transmission.
Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers’
compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on September 24, 2025, and the
case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on September 24, 2025. Service of the Report and
transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, we conclude that
the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because
service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as
to the commencement of the 60-day period on September 24, 2025.
II.
The parties dispute the correct methodology by which applicant’s percentages of disability
corresponding to various body parts/systems should be combined. Pursuant to section 4660.1, the
Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) is prima facie evidence of an injured employee’s
permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4660; cf. Ogilvie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274–1277 [76 Cal.Comp.Cases 624] (Ogilvie).) The PDRS provides that the
ratings for multiple body parts arising out of the same injury are “generally” combined using the
2 WCAB Rule 10600(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10600(b)) states that:
Unless otherwise provided by law, if the last day for exercising or performing any right or duty to act or
respond falls on a weekend, or on a holiday for which the offices of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals
Board are closed, the act or response may be performed or exercised upon the next business day.

5
Combined Values Chart (CVC), which is appended to the PDRS. (2005 PDRS, at p. 1-10.) Yet,
because it is part of the PDRS, the CVC is rebuttable and a reporting physician is not precluded
from utilizing a method other than the CVC to determine an employee’s whole person impairment
so long as the physician’s opinion remains within the four comers of the AMA Guides. (Lab. Code,
§ 4660; Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187
Cal.App.4th 808, 818–829 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].)
Accordingly, the use of the multiple disabilities table is discretionary depending upon
whether it produces a rating that fully compensates an applicant for the effects of his or her injury.
(Mihesuah v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 720, 728 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases
81, 87] (Mihesuah).)
In Kite v. East Bay Municipality Util. Dist. (December 5, 2012, ADJ6719136) [2012 Cal.
Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 640) (writ den. sub nom. Athens Administrators v. Workers’ Comp.
Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 [2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 34] (Kite),
applicant underwent industrial bilateral hip replacement surgeries. The evaluating orthopedic
QME opined that “there is a synergistic effect of the injury to the same body parts bilaterally versus
body parts from different regions of the body,” and that “the best way to combine the impairments
to the right and left hips would be to add them versus using the combined values chart, which
would result in a lower whole person impairment.” (Id. at p. 5.) Accordingly, the WCJ determined
that the most accurate rating of applicant’s permanent disability would be achieved by adding the
impairment for each hip, rather than by combining the respective impairment percentages under
the CVC. Following defendant’s petition for reconsideration, we affirmed the WCJ’s decision that
the “QME has appropriately determined that the impairment resulting from applicant’s left and
right hip injuries is most accurately combined using simple addition than by use of the combined-
values formula.” (Id. at p. 10.)
In Vigil v. County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS
23] (Appeals Board en banc), we discussed the two primary ways in which the Kite analysis had
been applied to permanent disability disputes:
In the first approach, the CVC has been rebutted where there was evidence
showing no actual overlap between the effects on ADLs as between the body
parts rated. In the second approach, the CVC has also been rebutted where there
is overlap, but the overlap creates a synergistic effect upon the ADLs.

6
a. No overlap of ADLs.
The first method for rebuttal of the CVC is to show that the multiple
impairments, in fact, have no overlap upon the effects of the ADLs. (See e.g.,
Devereux v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 2018 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 592;
Guandique v. State of California, 2019 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 53.) We
believe that one significant point of confusion on the issue of overlap is that
the
analysis should focus on overlapping ADLs, not body parts. Although the
formula for the CVC is from the AMA Guides, the chart used to calculate the
CVC is from the PDRS.
In determining whether the application of the CVC table has been rebutted in a
case, an applicant must present evidence explaining what impact applicant’s
impairments 	have 	had 	upon 	their 	ADLs. 	Where 	the 	medical 	evidence
demonstrates that the impact upon the ADLs overlaps, without more, an
applicant has not rebutted the CVC table. Where the medical evidence
demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap, the CVC table is
rebutted, and it need not be used.
…
b. Overlapping ADLs with a Synergistic Effect
The next method for rebutting the CVC was first discussed in Kite, where
applicant was awarded permanent disability by adding the impairment to each
hip and not by combining the impairments as ordinarily required by the PDRS
under the CVC. (Kite, supra, 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213.) In Kite, the CVC was
rebutted by substantial medical evidence showing the synergistic effect of the
two impairments on applicant.
‘Synergy’ is “(1) the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their
combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects; or (2)
Cooperative interaction among groups. . . that creates an enhanced combined
effect.” (American Heritage Dict. (Fifth Edition, 2022).) In some cases, two
impairments overlap with one another in their effect on ADLs to the extent that
they amplify one another to cause further impairment than what is anticipated in
the AMA Guides. Thus, it is permissible to add impairments where a synergistic
amplification of ADLs is shown. For example, if applicant had an impairment
in the dominant hand, an evaluator might find that the impairment impacts the
ADL of non-specialized hand activities, such as being able to button a shirt. If
applicant’s impairment was to both hands, one might expect the ability to
button a shirt to be even more difficult. The purpose of the CVC, avoiding
duplication, does not apply in such cases as the impairments are not duplicative,
because 	the 	two 	impairments 	together 	are 	worse 	than 	having 	a 	single
impairment.

7
We cannot emphasize enough that to constitute substantial evidence “…a
medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it
must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate
examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its
conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621
(Appeals Board en banc), (emphasis added).) The term ‘synergy’ is not a “magic
word” that immediately rebuts the use of the CVC. Instead, a physician must set
forth a reasoned analysis explaining how and why synergistic ADL overlap
exists. If parties are searching for a magic word to use during a doctor’s
deposition, that word is “Why?”. Rather than focusing on whether a specific
term, including the term synergy, was used, it is imperative that parties focus on
an analysis that applies critical thinking based on the principles articulated in
Escobedo to support a conclusion based on the facts of the case. Such an analysis
must include a detailed description of the impact of ADLs and how those ADLs
interact.
(Vigil, supra, at pp. 691-693.)
We thus held in Vigil that where an applicant seeks to rebut the CVC, they must establish the
following:
1. 	The ADLs impacted by each impairment to be added, and
2. 	Either:
a. 	The ADLs do not overlap, or
b. 	The ADLs overlap in a way that increases or amplifies the impact on
the overlapping ADLs.
(Id. at pp. 688-689.)
Our en banc decision in Vigil issued on June 10, 2024, and is mandatory authority on all
WCJ’s and WCAB panels. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10325(a); City of Long Beach v. Workers’
Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 313, fn. 5 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases
109]; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Board (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn. 6 [67
Cal.Comp.Cases 236]; see also Govt. Code, § 11425.60(b).)
Here, the parties dispute the most appropriate way in which to combine applicant’s various
disabilities for an injury that has caused orthopedic, psychiatric and internal disability. In a July 7,
2023 letter directed to QME Dr. Vally-Mahomed, applicant’s counsel submitted various medical
records and offered a discussion of the analysis in Kite, supra, 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213, inquiring
whether applicant’s “impairment should be added as opposed to using the CVC,” and further
asking the physician to “kindly explain your reasoning for your conclusion.” (Ex. 4, Report of Zain
Vally-Mahomed, M.D., dated August 4, 2023, at p. 3.) In response, Dr. Vally-Mahomed issued a

8
report of August 4, 2023, opining that “I absolutely agree that the applicant’s medical conditions
are synergistic. I also agree that the applicant’s impairment ratings should be added rather than use
the combined value chart to reflect disability appropriately.” (Id. at p. 6.) No additional analysis is
offered.
On this record, we concur with the WCJ’s determination that the opinions expressed by the
QME do not adequately discuss the issue of the most accurate methodology by which to combine
applicant’s various disability percentages. (Report, at p. 4.)
However, we also observe that following the issuance of Dr. Vally-Mahomed’s response
as set forth in his report of August 4, 2023, we issued our en banc decision in Vigil, supra, on June
10, 2024. As the WCJ’s Report ably discusses, our decision in Vigil set forth the nature of the
appropriate inquiry into combining permanent disability rating percentages by analyzing the issue
of overlap as it relates to ADLs.
It is well established that any decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
(WCAB) must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 635 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) Section 5701 provides the
appeals board with the authority to, “with or without notice to either party, cause testimony to be
taken, or inspection of the premises where the injury occurred to be made, or the timebooks and
payroll of the employer to be examined by any member of the board or a workers’ compensation
judge appointed by the appeals board … The appeals board may also from time to time direct any
employee claiming compensation to be examined by a regular physician … The testimony so taken
and the results of any inspection or examination shall be reported to the appeals board for its
consideration.” (Lab. Code, § 5701.)
Section 5906 provides that “[u]pon the filing of a petition for reconsideration, or having
granted reconsideration upon its own motion, the appeals board may, with or without further
proceedings and with or without notice affirm, rescind, alter, or amend the order, decision, or
award made and filed by the appeals board or the workers’ compensation judge on the basis of the
evidence previously submitted in the case, or may grant reconsideration and direct the taking of
additional evidence … Notice of the time and place of any hearing on reconsideration shall be
given to the petitioner and adverse parties and to other persons as the appeals board orders.” (Cal.
Lab. Code § 5906.)

9
The California Workers’ Compensation system was intended by the legislature to be a
complete system, as described in Divisions 4 and 5 of the Labor Code. These divisions represent
an expression of the police power and are intended to make effective and apply to a complete
system of workers’ compensation the provisions of Section 4 of Article XIV of the California
Constitution. Article XIV provides in relevant part that “administration of such legislation shall
accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without incumbrance
of any character. . .” (Cal.Const., art XIV, § 4.) Thus, under the grant of authority in the California
Constitution, the Appeals Board operates as an appellate court of limited jurisdiction that reviews
and decides appeals from decisions issued by workers’ compensation administrative law judges.
(Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; §§ 111-116, 133-134, 3201, 5300-5302, 5900 et seq.; Bankers
Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1935) 4 Cal.2d 89; Fremont Indemnity v. Workers’
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 965 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 288]; Azadigian v. Workers’
Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 372, 376 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 391] [“[t]he WCAB . . .
is a constitutional court”].)
Pursuant to the Appeals Board’s constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice,
and the authority described in sections 5701 and 5906, “it is well established that the WCJ or the
Board may not leave undeveloped matters which its acquired specialized knowledge should
identify as requiring further evidence.” (Kuykendall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79
Cal.App.4th 396, 404 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264]; see also Lundberg v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 436, 440 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 656, 659]; King v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals
Bd. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1640, 1649 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 408, 414]; Raymond Plastering v.
Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (King) (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 748, 753 [32 Cal.Comp.Cases 287,
291]; Tyler v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 392 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases
924, 926-927]; McClune v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1120-1121
[63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261, 265]; M/A Com-Phi v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sevadjian) (1998)
65 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1022-1023 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 821, 825].)
In addition, “the WCJ has a duty to develop an adequate record.” (Kuykendall, supra, 79
Cal.App.4th at p. 403, italics added; McClune, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 1120.) The duty arises
out of the Board’s obligation to completely adjudicate the issues submitted for decision by the
parties, consistent with principles of due process. (Telles Transport v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals
Bd. (Zuniga) (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165 [66 Cal. Comp. Cases 1290].)

10
We also observe that “[t]he overarching goal of rating permanent impairment is to achieve
accuracy.” (Milpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman)
(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, 822 [115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112, 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837].) A permanent
disability finding must be supported by substantial medical evidence, which requires that “a
medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be
speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it
must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70
Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).)
Here, applicant has sustained an original injury to the left knee and left leg resulting in an
above the knee amputation and concomitant orthopedic, psychiatric, and internal medicine-related
permanent disability. (Findings of Fact No. 8; Opinion on Decision, at pp. 3-4.) Applicant has
raised the issue of the most accurate method by which to combine the various disabilities and
sought analysis of the issue from an evaluating medical-legal physician. The record does not,
however, adequately address the issue of the most appropriate method by which applicant’s
permanent disability ratings should be combined to produce an accurate reflection of the nature
and scope of his underlying injury.
Accordingly, and following our review of the entire evidentiary record, we are persuaded
that the WCJ and the Appeals Board have an affirmative duty to develop the record to appropriately
and fully address the analysis set forth in Vigil, supra. Because the required analysis may
ultimately impact the determination of applicant’s residual percentages of permanent disability,
we will rescind the F&A and return this matter to the trial level for development of the record.

11
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of the decision of August 19, 2025 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board, that the August 19, 2025 Findings of Fact and Award is
RESCINDED and that this matter is RETURNED to the trial level for such further proceedings
and decisions by the WCJ as may be required, consistent with this opinion.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ KATHERINE WILLIAMS DODD, COMMISSIONER
I CONCUR,
/s/ CRAIG L. SNELLINGS, COMMISSIONER
I DISSENT (See Dissenting Opinion),
/s/ JOSÉ H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
November 24, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
DAMIEN SMITH
FIORE LEGAL
PEARLMAN, BORSKA & WAX
SAR/abs
I certify that I affixed the official seal of the Workers’
Compensation Appeals Board to this original decision
on this date. 	abs

12
DISSENTING OPINION OF COMMISSIONER RAZO
I concur with my colleagues that the current record does not offer the analysis necessary
under Vigil, supra, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686, to effectively rebut the PDRS. However, because the
PDRS represents prima facie evidence of the levels of permanent disability under Labor Code
section 4660(c) and 4660.1(d), I conclude that applicant’s failure to carry his burden of rebutting
such prima facie evidence obviates the need to develop the record. (Lab. Code, § 5705.) I dissent,
accordingly.
Our decision in Vigil made it clear that a physician seeking to address rebuttal of the PDRS
must set forth a reasoned analysis explaining how and why synergistic ADL overlap exists. We
observed:
If parties are searching for a magic word to use during a doctor’s deposition, that
word is “Why?”. Rather than focusing on whether a specific term, including the
term synergy, was used, it is imperative that parties focus on an analysis that
applies critical thinking based on the principles articulated in Escobedo to
support a conclusion based on the facts of the case. Such an analysis must
include a detailed description of the impact of ADLs and how those ADLs
interact.
(Vigil, supra, 89 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 693.)
Here, the QME’s one-sentence opinion on the issue falls short of the detailed and fact-
specific discussion of applicant’s ADLs required to rebut the PDRS. Moreover, our decision in
Vigil issued approximately one year prior to trial proceedings in this matter. I therefore agree with
the WCJ that despite the clear set of standards announced in Vigil, applicant failed to take
appropriate and timely action to have those standards addressed by the evaluating QMEs.
The WCJ has appropriately analyzed the record to determine applicant’s scheduled ratings.
The resulting ratings, as determined under the PDRS, are prima facie evidence of applicant’s levels
of permanent disability. In the absence of persuasive medical-legal opinion addressing the analysis
set forth in Vigil, the record contains legally sufficient evidence of applicant’s levels of permanent
disability as described in the PDRS and upon which the WCJ properly relied.

13
Based on my review of the record, I would affirm the WCJ’s award of 80 percent
permanent partial disability, accordingly.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD
/s/ JOSÉ H. RAZO, COMMISSIONER
DATED AND FILED AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
November 24, 2025
SERVICE MADE ON THE ABOVE DATE ON THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW AT
THEIR ADDRESSES SHOWN ON THE CURRENT OFFICIAL ADDRESS RECORD.
DAMIEN SMITH
FIORE LEGAL
PEARLMAN, BORSKA & WAX
SAR/abs
I certify that I affixed the official seal of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to this
original decision on this date. 	abs