- Almaraz-Guzman: A physician may depart from the specific recommendations of the AMA Guides and draw analogies to the Guides’ other chapters, tables, or methods of assessing impairment to provide the most accurate impairment rating.
- Richard Todd v. SIBTF: This case addresses many SIBTF issues including obtaining the total disability through addition and not using the CVC.
- Richard Todd v. SIBTF: The decision addresses the statute of limitations applicable to SIBTF applications and provides an easy checklist of the elements that must be met to establish SIBTF liability. And once those elements are demonstrated, the decision sets forth the formula to be used to calculate the amount of SIBTF liability under section 4751.
- Harris v. Numac: This case explains how 35% threshold is met before apportionment.
- Bookout vs. SIBTF: The Bookout case deals with the 35% rule and permanent disability resulting from the subsequent injury, qualifying disability being before adjustment for age, occupation or apportionment.
- Bookout vs. SIBTF: Additional reference.
- Ferguson v. Industrial Acc.Com. (1958) 23 CCC 108; 50 Cal. 2d 469: Ferguson v. Industrial Acc.Com. (1958) 23 CCC 108; 50 Cal. 2d 469: This California Supreme Court en banc decision awarded SIF benefits based, in part, on a pre-existing muscular dystrophy condition which “affected” the applicant’s lower extremities. In fact the Supreme Court specifically advised that the lower extremities were “affected” within footnote #4 at page 112: “In the present case petitioner’s claim is that his industrial injury to his right hip, together with the previous muscular dystrophy affecting ‘lower extremities,’ as found by the trial refereed, brings him within proviso (a) of the 1955 amendment.”
- SIF v. Post (1976), 41 CCC 436 and Rebecca Gray, Applicant vs. SIBTF: The court established that the 5% industrial disability does not have to be specifically to the opposite and corresponding body part, but must affect it.
- Richard Kite vs. East Bay Municipality Utility: This case deals with adding disabilities vs combing disabilities using the CVC chart.
- Evanoff v. City of Los Angeles (2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 201.): This case indicates that the “addition method” may be the preferred method to use over the “CVC” in certain cases with “non-overlapping disabilities.”
- Subsequent Injuries Fund v. W.C.A.B. (Talcott) (1970) 35 Cal.Comp.Cases 80: This case dealt with the statute of limitations for proceeding against the Fund within 5 years from the date of injury. This case also stated “The applicant may obtain benefits from the (Subsequent Injuries Fund) on the ground that the combination of his prior disability and the disability resulting from the subsequent injury is greater than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone even though he was unaware of the existence of a prior disability before he brings the compensation proceeding to collect benefits for the subsequent injury.”
- Fruehauf Corp. (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 569, 68 Cal. Rptr. 164, 440 {ac 2d 236}: Limitations on access to WC provisions on SIBTF should be liberally construed in favor of extending benefit unless denial is compelled by language in a statute. No loss of right before it accrues that falls in line with Labor Code 3202.
- Brown v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 903, 914: The Brown case states, “Although the prior disability need not be reflected in the form of loss of earnings, if it is not, it must be of a kind upon which an award for partial permanent disability could be made had it been industry caused.”
- Bookout v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd.: This case deals with achieving at least 35% PD from the subsequent injury, when considered alone and without regard to adjustment for age and occupation, must be more than 35 percent of the total disability. The case also addressed the issue of how to determine the “combined permanent disability” as specified in section 4751.
- Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 CCC 604, 19 [en banc]: Pre-existing condition must be labor disabling.
- Franklin v. W.C.A.B. (1978) 43 Cal.Comp.Cases 310: Another case dealing with SIBTF issues
- Freddie Mitchell vs. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund: Another case dealing with SIBTF issues.
- Tel: (916) 389-1207 Fax: (916) 292-9145
- admin@CASIBTF.com
