Duke

Duke v. Worker' Compensation Appeals Board

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 834·204 Cal. App. 3d 455·251 Cal. Rptr. 185·53 Cal. Comp. Cases 385
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 1988A040342California2,006 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

Petitioner Danny O. Duke (hereafter applicant) seeks review of that portion of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (hereafter Board) which rescinded an award of 15 and Vz percent permanent partial disability and further medical treatment made by the workers’ compensation judge (hereafter WCJ). We conclude that the Board, in denying permanent partial disability and further medical treatment for an industrially incurred sensitivity which precludes exposure to solvents, failed to consider applicant’s diminished ability to compete in the open labor market as required by Labor Code section 4660, subdivision (a). The Board’s decision, therefore, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and not supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. (§ 5952; Nielsen v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 756, 758 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 796 ].)

Section 4660 provides: “(a) In determining the percentages of permanent disability, account shall be taken of the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee, and his age at the time of such injury, consideration being given to the diminished ability of such injured employee to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.