Genlyte Group, LLC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
January 3, 2008, Second District, Div. Seven,
Cite as 2008 SOS 28

Worker’s Disability Case Vacated and Remanded to WCAB

Maria Zavala is an assembly worker for Genlyte, LLC.  In 2001, 2002 and 2003, she was injured while at work. A year later, in 2004, Hamid Rahman, an orthopedic surgeon, wrote a report which stated that Zavala had suffered a permanent disability. The medical report also indicated that he would determine the extent of Zabala’s disability after further evaluation.

Meanwhile, Brent Miller, also an orthopedic surgeon, issued another report in the same year which indicated that Zabala’s permanent impairment was expected, but her condition was not yet permanent and stationary.

In 2005, both surgeons issued reports finding that Zavala’s condition was now “permanent and stationary.”

A dispute arose over whether Zavala was entitled to permanent disability payments under the new schedule, which took effect in 2005, or under the old schedule.

Under the Labor Code §4660(d), the new schedule applies to all compensable claims arising on or after January 1, 2005, as well as to compensable claims arising before January 1, 2005 “when there has been either no comprehensive medical-legal report or no report by a treating physician indicating the existence of permanent disability, or when the employer is not required to provide the notice required by Section 4061 to the injured worker.”

Zavala argued that Dr. Rahman’s report satisfied the requirement for a medical-legal report. The company, Genlyte LLC argued that it did not.

The case went to trial before a workers’ compensation judge.

After hearing, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) concluded the schedule in effect prior to January 1, 2005 applied to Zavala’s claim because the 2004 report by Dr. Miller was a comprehensive medical-legal report within the exception of §4660(d).

Genlyte LLC filed a petition for reconsideration to the the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).

However, the WCAB adopted the WCJ’s decision and report, and denied Genlyte’s petition for reconsideration on the following grounds:

• That Dr. Miller’s 2004 comprehensive medical-legal report complied with §4660(d)


• that the former schedule applied, “regardless of the fact that the report contained no indication of permanent disability.”

In reviewing the case, the Second District, Division Seven vacated and remanded the decision, holding that the WCAB erred in finding that Dr. Miller’s report did not need to indicate permanent disability in order to comply with §4660(d).

The appeals court found that a comprehensive medical-legal report must indicate the existence of permanent disability to satisfy §4660(d)’s exception to application of the new schedule.

Further, the appeals court found that the WCAB misinterpreted two readings on which it based its decision, namely:

• the last antecedent rule of statutory construction to interpret the participial clause “indicating the existence of permanent disability” in §4660(d) as modifying the immediately preceding object “report by a treating physician” but not the more distant object “comprehensive medical-legal report.” (Baglione v. Hertz Car Sales (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 86 (Baglione I)


• the terms “permanent disability” and “permanent and stationary status” are used interchangeably in the applicable administrative regulations as relied on by Genlyte LCC. (Vera v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 996)

In correcting the errors, the court held that an injured worker’s condition need not be permanent and stationary for the treating physician or comprehensive medical-legal report to indicate the existence of permanent disability. In addition, the court found that the Legislature has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to specify “permanent and stationary status” when that is what it intends.

Finally, the court held that a medical-legal report need not indicate permanent and stationary status in order to document that an employee is permanently disabled.

Thus, because of the WCAB’s failure to consider whether the medical reports submitted by either Dr. Rahman or Dr. Miller prior to 2005 indicated permanent disability, the court remanded the case for determination.