Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Nabors: Follow the Reversal History Before Using the 2005 Calculation

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 1, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Nabors v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Co., No. SRO 0122159 (WCAB June 9, 2005) (en banc).

The 2005 WCAB Nabors decision is not the end of this case’s history. The Court of Appeal annulled that order in 2006, and the Supreme Court later disapproved the appellate court’s competing calculation in Brodie. This history matters when an older analysis describes percentage subtraction as a final, untouched en banc result. The current calculation principle should be supported by Brodie, not by omitting the intervening reversal.

The Board’s 2005 award used percentage subtraction

The WCAB considered a final 49-percent award and an 80-percent overall rating after a later injury. It affirmed a 31-percent award, valued under the then-applicable schedule at $22,610. The worker instead sought the scheduled value of the full disability less the earlier award’s dollars. These historical figures illustrate the dispute; they are not current payment rates. The opinion expressly did not decide general overlap or rating-methodology issues. Nabors (WCAB), pages 1–3, footnote 4.

The Board was divided over competing formulas

The four-commissioner majority retained Fuentes formula A: Identify the compensable disability percentage first, then calculate compensation. The two dissenters did not advance the same alternative. Chairman Rabine favored formula B, while Commissioner Caplane favored formula C. The disagreement concerned the conversion method after statutory reform; it did not establish that any earlier award can automatically be deducted without proof. Nabors (WCAB), pages 7–14.

The Court of Appeal annulled that order

In the later Nabors v. WCAB, 140 Cal. App. 4th 217 (2006), the Court of Appeal adopted formula C for this record, annulled the Board’s decision and directed recalculation. That is an actual adverse disposition, not merely a petition pending against an otherwise undisturbed order. Nabors (2006 Court of Appeal), page 12.

Brodie later rejected the appellate approach

The Supreme Court’s Brodie v. WCAB, 40 Cal. 4th 1313 (2007), retained formula A and disapproved the 2006 Nabors opinion to the extent inconsistent. It resolved the conversion question on the premise that the industrial percentage was properly apportioned. It did not purport to reinstate Danny Nabors’s individual award in its disposition. A present calculation still requires the supported percentage, applicable schedule and current statutory rules. Brodie (2007), pages 6, 23–25.

Key takeaways

• Distinguish the 2005 WCAB opinion from the 2006 appellate opinion.
• Record the actual annulment, not merely the filing of an appeal.
• Use Brodie for the later controlling calculation principle.
• Check proof of the apportioned percentage separately from conversion to dollars.