CITY OF ANAHEIM, permissibly self-insured, JAMES B. OTT, , to the bilateral shoulders and back is not supported by substantial evidence, 2) it was error to award more than 100% permanent disability when there was only one cumulative trauma period notwithstanding that two cumulative trauma injuries were claimed, and 3) it was error to award temporary disability indemnity for the period of time following applicant’s service retirement. An answer to defendant’s petition was received from applicant. Defendant filed a response to our April 29, 2009 Notice of Intention, contending that a finding of a single period of cumulative trauma causing 100% permanent disability would be contrary to the evidence and contrary to the parties’ stipulation in ADJ4088637 to rate the permanent disability caused by applicant’s cancer using the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (2005 PDRS) and the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Guides). In the response, defendant further disputes the WCJ’s findings of industrial injury to applicant’s right shoulder and low back in ADJ622123, and contends that the evidence shows that the total permanent disability caused by the injuries found in that case is less than 100%. We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the allegations of defendant’s petition for reconsideration and the WCJ’s Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) with respect thereto. For the reasons stated by the WCJ in his Report, which we incorporate by this reference, and for the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision ofthe WCJ as our decision after reconsideration except as to the findings of two industrial injuries and the findings of permanent disability. As described in our Notice of Intention, we conclude that applicant incurred one cumulative trauma injury while employed by defendant, and that the single cumulative trauma injury caused 100% permanent disability.
