What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the January 15, 2025 Amended Findings and Award, and issued a substituted decision affirming the WCJ's findings on injury, average weekly earnings, TTD period, permanent disability, and future medical treatment.
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 WCJ relied on the applicant's 2015 IRS tax form 1099 to determine average weekly earnings as it reflected a full year's earnings and was more reliable than weekly payroll records.
The WCJ credited the QME Dr. Jebraili's opinion and the applicant's undisputed testimony of being off work for 10 months, finding the period of TTD from January 19, 2017 to January 3, 2018 supported by substantial evidence.
From the decision · page 5We also note that while the QME did opine to applicant's period of temporary disability in his April 6, 2022 report which issued more than four years after applicant's industrial injury, the QME identified the period of temporary disability only after a review of applicant's contemporaneous treatment records with primary treating physician Dr. Pietruszka. (Joint Ex. E, Report of Ramin Jebraili, M.D., dated April 6, 2022, at p. 2; see also Joint Ex. G, Report of Ramin Jebriali, M.D., dated February 23, 2021, at pp. 9-10.) Here again, defendant declined to challenge the QME's opinions regarding the period of temporary disability either by request for supplemental reporting or in deposition. Additionally, the Appeals Board is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on that which it deems most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Applicant's undisputed testimony at trial that he was off work for 10 months following the injury.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The WCJ credited this testimony along with the QME's opinion to establish the period of temporary total disability from January 19, 2017 to January 3, 2018.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ's Report observes, however, that Dr. Jebraili was "the one physician [the] parties relied upon for the permanent and stationary date, so his opinions reasonably have merit and roughly coincide with the 10 months the applicant said [he] could not work." (Report, at p. 2.) Applicant's undisputed testimony at trial was that "he was not able to work after the accident... he was off work for 10 months." (Minutes, at p. 3:3.) We also note that defendant declined to cross-examine applicant at trial or to challenge applicant's accounting of the period of disability to which he testified. Nor does the evidentiary record reflect earnings during the identified period of disability. Thus, in weighing the evidence of temporary disability, the WCJ accorded the greater
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.
Identified period of temporary total disability from January 19, 2017 to January 3, 2018 based on review of contemporaneous treatment records and consistent with applicant's testimony.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Jebraili's report as substantial evidence for the TTD period, noting the QME's opinion coincided with the applicant's testimony and was unchallenged by defendant.
From the decision · page 5We also note that while the QME did opine to applicant's period of temporary disability in his April 6, 2022 report which issued more than four years after applicant's industrial injury, the QME identified the period of temporary disability only after a review of applicant's contemporaneous treatment records with primary treating physician Dr. Pietruszka. (Joint Ex. E, Report of Ramin Jebraili, M.D., dated April 6, 2022, at p. 2; see also Joint Ex. G, Report of Ramin Jebriali, M.D., dated February 23, 2021, at pp. 9-10.) Here again, defendant declined to challenge the QME's opinions regarding the period of temporary disability either by request for supplemental reporting or in deposition. Additionally, the Appeals Board is empowered to choose among conflicting medical reports and rely on that which it deems most persuasive. (Jones v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 476 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 221].)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4453(c)
Section 4453(c) of the Labor Code provides methods to calculate average weekly earnings, including consideration of earning capacity and actual earnings from all sources.
The WCJ applied this standard to determine average weekly earnings based on the applicant's 2015 IRS tax form 1099, reflecting a full year's earnings rather than weekly payroll records.
From the decision · page 5The F&A also analyzes the evidence responsive to the issue of applicant's average weekly wages. Section 4453(c) provides four methods to calculate average weekly earnings. (Lab. Code, § 4453(c)(1)-(4).) As relevant here, section 4453(c) provides as follows:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's undisputed trial testimony that he was off work for 10 months after the injury.
From the decision · page 4The WCJ's Report observes, however, that Dr. Jebraili was "the one physician [the] parties relied upon for the permanent and stationary date, so his opinions reasonably have merit and roughly coincide with the 10 months the applicant said [he] could not work." (Report, at p. 2.) Applicant's undisputed testimony at trial was that "he was not able to work after the accident... he was off work for 10 months." (Minutes, at p. 3:3.) We also note that defendant declined to cross-examine applicant at trial or to challenge applicant's accounting of the period of disability to which he testified. Nor does the evidentiary record reflect earnings during the identified period of disability. Thus, in weighing the evidence of temporary disability, the WCJ accorded the greater
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.