MEDREC SERVICES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SHERRY SPOONER, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIASHERRY SPOONER, Applicant,vs.MEDREC SERVICES; STATECOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ2025038 (ANA 0363181)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award of November 14, 2008, in which the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that on March 5, 2001, applicant sustained industrial injury to her spine and psyche, causing permanent disability of 80%, and that there is no apportionment to orthopedic or psychiatric factors of disability. Defendant contends, in substance, that the WCJ erred in following the medical opinion of Dr. Peck on psychiatric permanent disability but disregarding Dr. Peck’s opinion on apportionment. Applicant filed an answer. We begin by noting that defendant offers no argument that applicant’s permanent disability is anything other than 80%. Thus, the sole issue raised by defendant on reconsideration is whether the WCJ erred in finding no apportionment of the psychiatric permanent disability. Defendant has the burden of proof on this issue. (See Kopping v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229].) In this case, defendant relies on the medical opinion of Dr. Peck, applicant’s “secondary 24: treating physician in psychiatry,” to meet its burden of proving apportionment. However, we 251 conclude that Dr. Peck’s opinion is not substantial evidence of apportionment. Therefore. we will deny defendant’s petition for reconsideration. , In his report dated November 8, 2006, p. 27, Dr. Peck offered the following opinion on apportionment: “I am the Secondary Treating Physician in Psychiatry in the above workers’ compensation case. It is my opinion that 65 percent of permanent psychiatric work disability was c
