Ridi Home Care, Inc.; Nova Casualty Insurance Company, Leia Porter, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIALEIA PORTER,Applicant,vs.RIDI HOME CARE, INC.; NOVA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendants.Case No. ADJ9288622(Stockton District Office)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers’ compensation administrative law judge’s (WCJ) Findings and Award and Order of August 30, 2017, wherein it was found that, while employed on October 13, 2013 as a caregiver, applicant sustained industrial injury to her lumbar spine, causing permanent disability of 19% and the need for further medical treatment. In finding permanent disability of 19%, the WCJ rated the applicant’s permanent disability utilizing the scheduled 8% whole person impairment using the diagnosis-related estimate method, as well as a 3% add-on for pain, for a total 11 % WPI. In making her findings regarding the level of cervical impairment, the WCJ followed the strict interpretation of the AMA Guides impairments offered by panel qualified medical evaluator pain specialist James B. Shaw, M.D. However, the WCJ declined to adopt Dr. Shaw’s alternative impairment analysis pursuant to Milpitas Unified School District v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808 [75 Cal.Comp.Cases 837]. Applicant contends that the WCJ erred in finding permanent disability of only 19% arguing that the WCJ erred in not adopting Dr. Shaw’s alternative Guzman analysis. We have received an answer. We do not have the benefit of the report contemplated by Appeals Board Rule 10860 because the WCJ who issued the decision has retired. Nevertheless, because the requirement of a report is “directory rather than mandatory,” the lack of a report is no impediment to the issuance of our decision. (California Highway Patrol v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Clark) (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1019-1021 (51 , Cal.Comp.Cases 123]; United Mer
