What the panel ordered
Findings and Award dated September 14, 2022, affirmed after reconsideration.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant seeking review of the September 14, 2022 Findings and Award by the WCJ; WCJ Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal recommending denial of petition; WCAB decision after reconsideration affirming the Findings and Award.
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.
From the decision · page 5The Report states that there is only one uncontradicted and unimpeached medical report from Dr. Miller dated June 3, 2022 which was presented at the August 17, 2022 expedited hearing. The June 3, 2022 report completed by Dr. Miller indicates that applicant is entitled to temporary total disability and should receive medical treatment. Based on Dr. Miller's report, applicant's condition at the time of Dr. Miller's examination on June 3, 2022 was that applicant was unable to perform her regular job duties.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Only one medical report was admitted into evidence, the June 3, 2022 report from Dr. Lance Miller, which found the applicant temporarily totally disabled.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This uncontradicted and unimpeached report was the sole substantial evidence supporting entitlement to temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 9Defendants point out this authority as support for their own arguments, however, the undersigned would argue that this authority supports the Findings and Award that issued in this matter. The Board was presented with only one medical report, that of Dr. Lance Miller, DC, dated June 3, 2022 (Applicant's exhibit 1). In that report, which is uncontradicted and unimpeached by any evidence admitted at the expedited trial, the treating physician finds the applicant TTD. The report is a form issued by the State of California, titled Doctor's First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness. All required information is filled in and noted. The mechanism of injury appears consistent with the applicant's complaints. A physical examination was done. Diagnoses were issued, medical treatment needed to cure or relieve the applicant of her injuries is addressed. The report is bare bones but is not insubstantial.
Defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and offered to applicant within restrictions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without evidence of available and offered modified work, defendant cannot avoid liability for temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
Defendant failed to timely authorize medical treatment and referrals, delaying applicant's recovery and contributing to lack of medical evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure likely prolonged the applicant's temporary disability period, supporting ongoing benefits.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
Favours Applicant prevailed
The stipulation was binding and not disturbed, establishing the rate for temporary disability benefits.
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.
In the June 3, 2022 report, Dr. Miller found the applicant temporarily totally disabled and recommended medical treatment including referrals to specialists.
The report was uncontradicted and unimpeached and was relied upon to find temporary total disability entitlement.
From the decision · page 5The Report states that there is only one uncontradicted and unimpeached medical report from Dr. Miller dated June 3, 2022 which was presented at the August 17, 2022 expedited hearing. The June 3, 2022 report completed by Dr. Miller indicates that applicant is entitled to temporary total disability and should receive medical treatment. Based on Dr. Miller's report, applicant's condition at the time of Dr. Miller's examination on June 3, 2022 was that applicant was unable to perform her regular job duties.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code §§ 4650-4657; Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. WCAB (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159; Department of Rehabilitation v. WCAB (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281
Temporary disability indemnity is payable during the healing period until the worker returns to work or reaches permanent and stationary status.
Applied to determine entitlement to temporary disability benefits based on medical evidence and work availability.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and offered to applicant within restrictions.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
Defendant failed to timely authorize medical treatment and referrals, delaying applicant's recovery and contributing to lack of medical evidence.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
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.