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.

Case:


Related Newsletters

  1. The Court of Appeal Issued a Published Decision on the Issue of Rebutting a Rating of Permanent Disability Under the AMA Guides
  2. The Court of Appeal Issued a Non Published Decision on the Issue Which Rating Schedule to Use
  3. The Court of Appeal Issued a Non Published Decision on the Issue of Good Cause to Reopen Under Labor Code 5803
  4. The Court of Appeal Issued a Non Published Decision on the Issue of Good Cause to Reopen Under Labor Code 5803
  5. The Court of Appeal Issued a Non Published Decision on the Issue of Vocational Rehabilitation
Editor:
Harvey Brown
Address:
3501 Jamboree Rd. Suite 602
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone:
949-252-1300
Website:
www.sgvblaw.com

Newsletter Sign up

SUBSCRIBE to our
Workers Compensation Feed

Recent Newsletters

Categories

Archives