What the panel ordered
Decision of November 23, 2020 affirmed except amended to correct benefit rate and remanded for further development on TTD period
Petition for Reconsideration granted to correct benefit rate and develop record on temporary total disability period
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The record on the exact period of TTD was found insufficient and the matter was remanded for further development to determine the precise dates of TTD.
From the decision · page 3Defendant, the LOS ANGELES COUNTY HIGH DESERT HOS PIT AL, by and its attorneys of record, has filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Findings and Order of 23 November 2020. In it defendant argues two point: That the undersigned used the wrong benefit rate and that insufficient evidence exists to support the period of temporary total disability (TTD) awarded.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Correcting the benefit rate was necessary for accurate award calculation and was part of the reconsideration grant.
The parties did not provide exact benefit printouts or earnings information and chose to go to trial on permanent and temporary disability issues without this information.
Favours neutral
This lack of exact data led to reliance on estimates and the need for further record development on the TTD period.
From the decision · page 3Injury was admitted in this case but for some reason, the parties chose neither to fill out paragraph 4 of the Pretrial Conference Statement nor to provide benefit printouts or earnings information. Despite this, the parties chose to go to trial on the issues of permanent and temporary disability.
Dr. Meth's report estimated about two months of TTD attributable to the industrial injury before 2014 but did not specify exact dates.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The estimate was used by the judge but found insufficient for precise adjudication, leading to remand for further development.
From the decision · page 3This case involves an industrial a mold exposure case where the applicant worked at a location with a leaky roof. He was exposed to mold, rat and bird feces. As a result, he developed bronchitis on multiple occasions over the period from 1998 to sometime in 2005. Also in 2005, he developed a non-industrial benign thymoma that was surgically removed in May 2005. The QME report of Dr. Meth was the only narrative report (Defense Exhibit "B") and was supplemented by a deposition of the doctor (Defense Exhibit "A.") The report and the deposition read together conclude that the lung problems were industrial but found zero permanent disability.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Dr. Meth concluded the lung problems were industrial but found zero permanent disability. He estimated about two months of temporary total disability (TTD) attributable to the industrial injury before 2014.
His report and deposition were used to estimate the TTD period, but the exact dates were found insufficient and required further development.
From the decision · page 3This case involves an industrial a mold exposure case where the applicant worked at a location with a leaky roof. He was exposed to mold, rat and bird feces. As a result, he developed bronchitis on multiple occasions over the period from 1998 to sometime in 2005. Also in 2005, he developed a non-industrial benign thymoma that was surgically removed in May 2005. The QME report of Dr. Meth was the only narrative report (Defense Exhibit "B") and was supplemented by a deposition of the doctor (Defense Exhibit "A.") The report and the deposition read together conclude that the lung problems were industrial but found zero permanent disability.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 5701
Trial judge may appoint a regular physician only after steps including supplemental reports and deposition of the doctor are complete.
From the decision · page 4If, however, one or more of the parties is not satisfied with the decision, the trier of fact may develop the record. McDuffie vs. L.A.M.T.A.(en banc, 2002) 67 CCC 138. Such development must start with supplemental reports, followed by a deposition of the doctor, followed by the trial judge strongly urging an agreed medical evaluator (AME.) Only when all of these steps are complete may the trial judge appoint a regular physician under Labor Code section 5701. See Tyler vs. WCAB (1997) 56 Cal.App 4111 389; 62 CCC 924.
McDuffie vs. L.A.M.T.A. (en banc, 2002) 67 CCC 138
Record development must start with supplemental reports, deposition, and possibly an AME to clarify TTD periods.
From the decision · page 4If, however, one or more of the parties is not satisfied with the decision, the trier of fact may develop the record. McDuffie vs. L.A.M.T.A.(en banc, 2002) 67 CCC 138. Such development must start with supplemental reports, followed by a deposition of the doctor, followed by the trial judge strongly urging an agreed medical evaluator (AME.) Only when all of these steps are complete may the trial judge appoint a regular physician under Labor Code section 5701. See Tyler vs. WCAB (1997) 56 Cal.App 4111 389; 62 CCC 924.
Tyler vs. WCAB (1997) 56 Cal.App 4111 389; 62 CCC 924
Trial judge's authority to appoint a regular physician after other steps are exhausted.
From the decision · page 4If, however, one or more of the parties is not satisfied with the decision, the trier of fact may develop the record. McDuffie vs. L.A.M.T.A.(en banc, 2002) 67 CCC 138. Such development must start with supplemental reports, followed by a deposition of the doctor, followed by the trial judge strongly urging an agreed medical evaluator (AME.) Only when all of these steps are complete may the trial judge appoint a regular physician under Labor Code section 5701. See Tyler vs. WCAB (1997) 56 Cal.App 4111 389; 62 CCC 924.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Expert testimony of Dr. Meth estimating about two months of TTD before 2014
From the decision · page 3This case involves an industrial a mold exposure case where the applicant worked at a location with a leaky roof. He was exposed to mold, rat and bird feces. As a result, he developed bronchitis on multiple occasions over the period from 1998 to sometime in 2005. Also in 2005, he developed a non-industrial benign thymoma that was surgically removed in May 2005. The QME report of Dr. Meth was the only narrative report (Defense Exhibit "B") and was supplemented by a deposition of the doctor (Defense Exhibit "A.") The report and the deposition read together conclude that the lung problems were industrial but found zero permanent disability.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.