What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; final decision deferred pending further review of merits and entire record.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the February 2, 2024 Findings and Order; WCJ recommended denial; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred final decision pending further review.
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 Appeals Board found that the offer of modified work was unclear as to whether it was bona fide and granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues.
From the decision · page 7Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review of the evidence and the existing record as to whether the offer of modified work made by defendant was a bona fide offer. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Unclear if defendant's offer of modified work was bona fide.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This uncertainty required granting reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues.
From the decision · page 7Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review of the evidence and the existing record as to whether the offer of modified work made by defendant was a bona fide offer. Taking into account the statutory time constraints for acting on the petitions, and based upon our initial review of the record, we believe reconsideration must be granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues in this case.
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.
Found applicant not permanent and stationary as of trial date.
Provided temporary work restrictions and found applicant not returned to work or permanent and stationary as of trial date.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4650-4657; Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 860
Temporary disability indemnity ceases when employee returns to work, is medically able to return, or becomes permanent and stationary.
Employer must show work within restrictions is available and offered to relieve liability for temporary disability.
From the decision · page 5I. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Temporary disability indemnity is a workers' compensation benefit that is paid while an injured worker is unable to work because of a work-related injury and is primarily intended to substitute for lost wages. (Gonzales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Board (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 843 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 1477]; J. T. Thorp, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Butler) (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 333 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 224].)
Dennis v. State of California 85 Cal. Comp. Cases 389, 405 (Appeals Board en banc)
A bona fide offer is one made in good faith, honestly, openly, and sincerely without deceit or fraud.
The employer's offer of modified work must be bona fide to relieve liability for temporary disability.
From the decision · page 6The holding in Huston links an employer's showing that modified work is available and offered with an injured worker's entitlement to temporary disability. Thus, in order to be relieved of potential liability for temporary disability for an injured worker capable of returning to modified duties, the employer must establish that work within applicant's restrictions is both available and offered. In Dennis v. State of California 85 Cal. Comp. Cases 389, 405 (Appeals Board en banc), we stated that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony about the commute and living situation after injury.
From the decision · page 2Applicant testified at trial in relevant part as follows. She was injured at the Vallejo Costco, and at time was living in Vallejo, approximately 4 minutes from the store. (MOH/SOE at p. 4.) Immediately after the injury she received TTD, but later returned to work on modified duty four hours a day. (Id.) She exhausted the available modified duty, and thereafter she received TTD again until it ended on March 23, 2023. (Id.) She subsequently moved to Manteca for financial reasons and moved in with her daughter to reduce her expenses in an effort to
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.