Coats: An Unclear Job-Duty Record Required More Evidence Before Rating Permanent Disability

Your job title may say “property manager,” even if the work also required moving furniture and performing custodial tasks. When an injury leaves lasting limitations, those physical demands can matter to your disability rating. A disagreement about the occupation code needs a clear account of the work—and evidence supporting it.

In Coats v. Public Storage, No. ADJ11949488 (WCAB May 21, 2024), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board set aside and replaced an award because the record was insufficient to resolve a disputed occupational group. It sent the case back for further proceedings, deferred permanent disability and preserved an award of future medical treatment.

A property-manager title concealed the actual dispute

Theris Coats injured his left shoulder, lower back and left knee while working as a relief property manager in January 2019. A qualified medical evaluator found permanent disability, but the parties disagreed about the occupational group used to rate it.

The trial positions described in Coats were far apart. The employer proposed group 213 for property managers. Coats proposed group 560 for furniture movers and garbage collectors, relying on the lifting involved in his work. The judge selected group 341 to account for the job’s custodial and lifting requirements.

The judge understood Coats’s testimony to mean that he lifted no more than 50 pounds and sought help above that weight. The judge also found that heavy lifting was not an integral part of the job. At the same time, the employer’s own exhibits described lifting up to 35 pounds, which the judge concluded group 213 did not adequately account for.

On reconsideration, Coats proposed group 460 and argued that the judge had misstated his testimony. He said his work moving bed frames, dressers, mattresses, couches, televisions and chairs was not limited to 50 pounds. That was his challenge to the finding; the Board still needed evidence sufficient to resolve it.

The rating had to reflect duties proved in the record

Labor Code section 4660.1(a) makes the worker’s occupation at injury one of the factors used to determine permanent disability. The occupational adjustment accounts for the physical requirements of different kinds of work. An occupation dispute therefore concerns a factual input to the rating, not simply a preference for a larger final percentage.

The rating principles applied in Coats explain why. Holt v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 187 Cal.App.3d 1257, 1261 (1986), connects the adjustment to the physical requirements of the occupation. Dalen v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 26 Cal.App.3d 497, 503, 505–506 (1972), treats the group as a factual question and recognizes the higher applicable factor when the work embraces more than one occupation.

The duties must actually support the classification. The Board also applied National Kinney v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 113 Cal.App.3d 203, 215–216 (1980), concerning an activity that is an integral part of the occupation. In a mixed-duty job, the useful questions include what tasks the job required, how they were performed and what evidence establishes those demands.

For Coats, the difference between the judge’s understanding of a 50-pound limit and his account of heavier furniture work went directly to the disputed input. The Board concluded that the existing record did not supply enough evidence to decide between groups 341 and 460.

Competing descriptions required more evidence

The record analysis in Coats relied on the requirement that a decision rest on admitted evidence and substantial support. The Board applied Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation, 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476, 478 (WCAB en banc 2001), and explained that an identifiable evidentiary basis lets the parties understand the decision and seek meaningful review.

It also connected the incomplete record with a fair hearing. The opportunity to present and inspect exhibits, examine witnesses and offer rebuttal helps resolve competing factual descriptions. A lawyer’s assertion that lifting was heavier and the judge’s account of the testimony had to be assessed through that record.

The directions on return in Coats recommended further development of the occupational evidence. The Board identified an updated job analysis and any other necessary discovery as ways to address the dispute. The next step was to establish the facts needed for a supported classification.

An updated analysis is useful when it answers the actual disagreement. For example, an account of furniture handling should distinguish lifting alone from lifting with help, identify the weights supported by the available evidence and explain whether the task was a required part of the job. An analysis organized around these questions gives the judge evidence to compare with the competing descriptions of the job.

The Board deferred the rating and preserved future medical care

The Board rescinded the April 2021 findings and award and substituted new findings. It deferred the occupational-group issue and permanent disability for all body parts because the occupation had to be resolved before the final rating could be determined. Attorney fees were also deferred.

The substituted findings in Coats retained the work-injury findings for the left shoulder, lumbar spine and left knee, along with the findings against injury to the right shoulder, right knee and both feet. The award in Coats provided future medical treatment reasonably required for the injury.

For the worker, the result meant further proceedings on the occupation and disability percentage while the medical award remained. Understanding which issues were deferred and which findings survived is essential when reviewing what a reconsideration decision changes.

Make the job analysis specific enough to test

Start with the occupational group used in the rating and the job information supplied to support it. Compare that information with your actual required duties at injury. If you disagree, identify the particular task, weight, assistance or work position that the description misses, together with an accurate source for it.

A job description, testimony and other records may describe different aspects of the work. Discuss material differences with counsel so the evidence can address the classification actually in dispute. When a decision appears to misstate testimony, compare its explanation with the hearing record rather than relying on memory alone.

Our guide to DEU ratings explains how occupation fits into the larger rating process. Gunderson illustrates a record that supported the occupational group used. Coats shows why the Board returned an unresolved classification for more evidence before deciding permanent disability.