The decision in Robert Gravlin’s claim against the City of Vista will balance the apportionment of permanent disability rules in favor of employers – unless he succeeds in his efforts to overturn the WCAB.

A Petition for Writ of Review was filed by Gravlin on May 10, 2017 in the 4th Appellate District, Division 1, case D072155. His Petition was dismissed on June 6. Unless the California Supreme Court intervenes, the Decision after Reconsideration will become final.

Gravlin was employed by the City of Vista as a firefighter from January 6, 1975 until January, 2005.

He filed claims for several industrial injuries sustained during the course of that employment including alleging cumulative trauma injury to the heart/hypertension and to the skin (skin cancer).

The dispute at trial was to resolve issues raised by applicant’s contention that one cumulative trauma case is properly applied to both the admitted injury to the skin and to the injury to the heart, and defendant’s contention that there were separate dates of injury for the injury to the heart and for the injury to the skin, and “Anti-Merger,” presumably in reference to the provisions of section 3208.2.

The WCJ accepted applicant’s contention and found one cumulative trauma injury causing injury to the heart and skin.The recommended permanent disability rating for the heart injury is 55% and the recommended permanent disability rating for the skin injury is 35%. Under the MDT, the two ratings combine for a single rating of 74% permanent disability.

Reconsideration was granted and the WCJ’s decision was rescinded in the split panel decision of Gravlin v City of Vista. New findings were entered that applicant sustained two separate cumulative injuries, one to the heart/ hypertension and the other to his skin. The different dates of injury support separate awards of permanent disability for those separate conditions, which resulted in a lower financial award for Gravlin.

Commissioner Newman dissented. He would uphold the decision of the WCJ for the reasons expressed in her Report.

Thus far Gravlin has not been successful in reversing the WCAB, and his chances are now more remote now that the Court of Appeal has declined to hear the case.