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 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Blackledge v. Bank of America, No. ADJ1735018 (LBO 0375311) (WCAB June 3, 2010) (en banc).

A doctor reported 10-percent whole person impairment, but the formal rater returned a zero-percent disability recommendation after making a different assessment. Who was entitled to decide what? Blackledge v. Bank of America, a June 3, 2010 WCAB en banc decision, separates the physician’s medical assessment, the judge’s findings and instructions, and the rater’s calculation. It did not finally approve either side’s disability figure.

The dispute exposed uncertainty in the formal-rating process

The judge’s template named the injured body parts and a medical report, then asked the rater to consider a pain addition. It did not clearly specify the impairments to rate or whether an independent assessment was requested. The rater substituted zero impairment for the doctor’s findings; the judge then rejected that recommendation and rated the case himself. The Board found problems with both the instructions and the underlying medical explanation. Blackledge, pages 3–5, 17–23.

The physician supplies reasoned impairment findings

The physician assesses whole person impairment, or WPI: The medical impairment component used in the rating process. The report must identify the actual percentage for each condition and explain the history, examination findings, applicable Guides method and reasoning supporting it. A number attached to a report is not enough if the reasoning is missing. Nor can a rater mechanically supply the physician’s medical judgment from raw findings. Blackledge, pages 7–9.

The judge frames the formal instructions

The judge must first decide which medical conclusions are supported, then give specific formal rating instructions. The decision describes two ways to identify the input: Specify each body part’s WPI percentage, or identify the precise report, author, date and pages supplying it. Merely naming a body part and attaching a lengthy report leaves the rater to guess what the judge found. Blackledge, pages 10–11, 17–18.

If the judge also wants the rater’s expert assessment of a possible Guides problem, that is a separate request. The instructions must still describe the impairment to be rated; the rater can then separately explain a suggested higher or lower input and why. Seeking help does not transfer the judge’s responsibility for the evidence to the rater. Blackledge, pages 11–13.

The rater follows the instructions

In a formal rating, the specialist follows the judge’s instructions and cannot silently replace the specified medical inputs. The rater is an expert in applying the rating schedule, not a substitute medical witness or factfinder. If separately asked to explain a Guides concern, the rater still supplies the requested rating before presenting that additional opinion. Blackledge, pages 12–14.

The Board also prohibited private, substantive communication between the trial judge and the assigned formal rater; rating memoranda must be served on the parties. It distinguished this setting from nontrial consultations, such as settlement review. Formal and nonformal ratings should not be treated as interchangeable. Our consultative-rating guide explains that separate document category. Blackledge, pages 14–17.

The judge remained free to reject the recommendation or rate independently, but the result still needed substantial evidence. Here the Board deferred permanent disability and attorney’s fees and returned those issues for a new decision, leaving further medical treatment in the award. It did not set a final disability percentage. Blackledge, pages 19–25.

Key takeaways

• Require the physician to explain each impairment conclusion.
• Frame precise formal-rating instructions from admitted evidence.
• Separate the requested calculation from any expressly requested expert rating opinion; do not leave the rater to make medical findings.
• Review the recommendation independently before entering an award.