“I think it’s carpal tunnel.”

The two facts

Loss of grip strength is expressly excluded. The AMA Guides state that in compression neuropathies, no additional impairment is given for decreased grip strength. The most intuitive complaint — “I can’t hold anything” — is written out of the rating.

And normal electrodiagnostic testing does not permit a diagnosis for rating purposes. A worker with real symptoms and clean nerve studies rates zero under the strict method.

Neither affects your right to medical treatment or to wage replacement while you are off work. Those are separate entitlements. The full explanation.

And De Quervain’s, trigger finger, and epicondylitis have no diagnosis-based value at all — they rate zero if motion returns.

What to do now

Report it in writing, even though there was no incident.

Describe the work specifically: what motion, how many times an hour, with what force, for how many hours, for how many years. “Repetitive work” is not a mechanism.

Get the nerve conduction study. It is what the rating method requires, and it is what a causation dispute turns on.

And mention both hands if both are affected — bilateral carpal tunnel should generate two rating strings, one per hand, each converted and then combined. A single string for bilateral CTS is a checkable problem.

The deadline is probably not what you think

Under § 5412, the date of injuryDate of injury For a cumulative or occupational disease claim, the law sets it as when you first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related — not when the wear began. Almost every deadline runs off this. for a cumulative traumaCT — Cumulative trauma Injury from repeated exposure over time. The largest injury category in California and the least claimed. claim is when you first suffered disability and knew or should have known it was work-related — not when the symptoms began.

“It’s been bothering me for years” is a description of a cumulative trauma claim, not a reason it is late. How.

What will be argued

Diabetes, thyroid disease, obesity, pregnancy, age, and non-work keyboard use.

Several are genuine risk factors. But apportionmentApportionment Dividing permanent disability between industrial and non-industrial causes. It is to disability, not to findings on an image. is to disability, not to risk factors — and under EscobedoEscobedo The en banc decision requiring an apportionment opinion to explain how and why. A percentage without reasoning is not substantial evidence. the opinion must explain how and why. More.

Where this comes from