A published decision of the Court of Appeal addresses Almaraz/Guzman-II issue of rating with no objective findings

This is a published court of Appeal case

This is a very significant case for workers’ compensation principles.

The applicant was a police officer. He injured his left foot and heel. This was an admitted injury. He was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis.

An Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) wrote a report offering no impairment under the AMA Guides. In a supplemental report the doctor gave a 7 percent impairment using Almaraz-Guzman-II, because other than tenderness, no objective findings were identifiable.

At trial the Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found no impairment because the condition was not “ complex or extraordinary”. On petition for reconsideration the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed indicating that the doctor by analogy provided an accurate assessment which met the requirements of Almaraz/Guzman-II.

The appellate court reviewed Almaraz/Guzman-II and indicated that even though the plantar fasciitis was only manifested by subjective experiences of pain a 7 percent permanent disability was warranted. This was equivalent to an analogy of a limp with arthritis.


A non published Court of Appeal case has indicated a professional athlete is not entitled to benefits in California

The applicant was a professional basketball player in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA). The applicant did not reside in California during her career in professional basketball.

She played one game in California on July 20, 2003.

She did not have a specific injury on that date. She filed a cumulative trauma for her multiple basketball injuries with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).

A Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded disability benefits and the defendant filed a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB rescinded the award and returned it to the WCJ for apportionment purposes. The defendant filed a writ with the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeal issued this decision even though there was no final decision or order from the WCAB.

The appellate court indicated California does not have sufficient interest to apply its workers’ compensation law or to retain jurisdiction over the case. As a matter of due process, California has no obligation to the applicant.


Newsletter Sign up

SUBSCRIBE to our
Workers Compensation Feed

Recent Newsletters

Categories

Archives