Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Blackledge: The Physician, Judge, and Rater Have Distinct Rating Roles

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 5, 2026

Blackledge v. Bank of America assigns responsibility among the medical evaluator, workers' compensation judge, and disability evaluation specialist when converting impairment evidence into permanent disability.

The dispute exposed uncertainty in the formal-rating process

The case required the Board to define who decides whether an impairment analysis complies with the AMA Guides and who merely performs the mathematical and occupational rating steps.

The physician supplies reasoned impairment findings

The evaluator assesses whole-person impairment and must explain the facts and reasoning supporting the percentages under the Guides and governing case law. A bare figure does not substitute for substantial medical evidence.

The judge frames the formal instructions

The WCJ identifies the impairment to be rated through specific instructions grounded in substantial medical evidence. The judge may request expert rating input, remains responsible for evidentiary sufficiency, and is not bound by the recommended rating.

The rater follows the instructions

A disability evaluation specialist calculates the recommended rating from the WCJ's instructions. Unless specifically asked, the rater does not independently reject an impairment as medically unsupported or inconsistent with the Guides. The final award still must rest on substantial evidence.

Key takeaways

• Require the physician to explain each impairment conclusion.
• Frame precise formal-rating instructions from admitted evidence.
• Do not ask the rater to decide medical admissibility by default.
• Review the recommendation independently before entering an award.