Jenna’s Library / Cannon
City of Sacramento v Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Cannon), (2013) 79 CCC 1.
The 3rd Appellate District certified this Arthur Cannon case for publication on 1/15/14 (#CO7294479). The 6th District in Guzman III suggested a departure from the strict application of the AMA Guides should occur only to accommodate complex or extraordinary cases. The 3rd District in Cannon addressed the “complex or extraordinary” issue.
In Cannon, the AME determined that the strict application of the Guides did not provide impairment for the plantar fasciitis, because other than some tenderness, there were no identifiable objective abnormalities. Since the applicant had a restriction from prolonged running, the AME applied a 7 WPI from the gait derangement per Table 17-5 for the alternate rating. This was controversial because Table 17-5 requires moderate to advanced arthritic changes, and the applicant did not have arthritic changes. The AME thought that by analogy, the applicant’s heel pain interfered with weight-bearing activities, particularly running, and thus it would be similar to an individual with a limp and arthritis.
The court found nothing in Labor Code 4660 that precluded a finding of impairment based solely on subjective complaints. The court determined that the plantar fasciitis was a complex or extraordinary case because the Guides do not address such syndromes that are “poorly understood and are manifested only by subjective symptoms.”