Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Ogilvie: The Scheduled Permanent-Disability Rating Was Rebuttable

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 3, 2026

The WCAB's September 2009 Ogilvie opinion clarified when and how a party could attempt to rebut a scheduled permanent-disability rating under the 2005 statutory system.

The schedule supplied prima facie evidence

The Board read former Labor Code section 4660(c) to mean that a rating produced by the permanent-disability schedule was evidentiary rather than irrebuttable. The party disputing the scheduled rating carried the burden of overcoming it.

A component could be challenged

One proposed method was to challenge the scheduled diminished-future-earning-capacity adjustment with individualized evidence. The proof had to remain consistent with the statute, the RAND data referenced by the Legislature, and the numerical structure adopted in the schedule.

Substantial evidence was essential

A case-specific earning-loss calculation did not automatically replace the schedule. The alternative adjustment had to be methodologically sound and constitute substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the schedule's prima facie rating.

Later authority controls current use

The Court of Appeal later reviewed and narrowed the permissible rebuttal methodology, and the governing permanent-disability statutes have continued to evolve. The en banc opinion should therefore be read as part of the doctrinal sequence, not as a standalone present-day formula.

Key takeaways

• Begin with the schedule applicable to the injury date.
• Place the burden on the party disputing the scheduled rating.
• Demand a transparent methodology supported by substantial evidence.
• Read the WCAB opinion with the later appellate decision and statutory amendments.