STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, Administered By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND KAY RODRIGUEZ WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAKAY RODRIGUEZ, Applicant,vs.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured,Administered By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ1728771 (LBO 0316743)ADJ1516565 (LBO 0860347)ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION 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. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. We further note that the Almaraz-Guzman cases allow a physician to “utilize any chapter, table, or method in the AMA Guides that most accurately reflects the injured employee’s impairment.” (Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services/Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District (2009) 74 Cal.Comp.Cases 1084, 1086 [Appeals Board en banc]; Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837, 839].) In order for a physician’s opinion to constitute substantial evidence, however, the physician must set forth reasoning for not using the generic or strict rating, and for using the alternative Whole Person Impairment (WPI) that the physician selected. (Yeager Const. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 [Appeals Board en banc].) This includes an analysis of functional loss and the impact of the injury on the Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). , In this case, the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) failed to provide the requisite reasoning to support the alternative rating. While there are often reasons why the Board
Menu
