You can find that here:http://www.workerscompzone.com/2018/11/15/the-lindh-case/This case marks yet another loss for the applicant bar in a string of prominent post-2004 apportionment reform cases, all cited by the Lindh court. Those losses started with Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 CCC 604, continued through E.L. Yeager Construction v. WCAB (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 922, Brodie v. WCAB (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1313, Acme Steel v. WCAB (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1137, and City of Jackson v. WCAB (2017), 11 Cal. App. 5th 109.A key argument made against the apportionment of Mr. Lindh’s eye disability was that it was apportionment to a risk factor rather than to a cause of disability. This argument is rejected by the Court of Appeal, noting that the fact the QME “referred to this underlying condition as putting Lindh at “higher risk” of suffering the disability, does not change the fact that Lindh had an underlying condition……..that was, along with the work-place injury, a cause of his impaired vision.”
It should be noted that the DWC is not required to go through the Administrative Procedures Act for treatment guideline updates and OFMS (treatment fees) updates.2. The issue of apportionment to genetic causation rose in prominenceA case decided by the California Court of Appeal Third District, City of Jackson v. WCAB (Christopher Rice) 11 Cal. App. 5th 109, addressed whether the courts would uphold a QME’s determination that a portion of the disability should be apportioned due to genetic causation. The Court of Appeal determined that this was allowable.