What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration after the WCJ issued Findings of Fact and Award and Opinion on Decision on June 27, 2023.
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 and WCAB found that defendant did not establish good cause for termination despite allegations of multiple company policy violations, and thus applicant was entitled to temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 4II. FACTS: The claim herein involves an admitted specific injury that took place on August 30, 2022, to the applicant's right knee, while he worked as a delivery associate for defendant, Villagrana Logistics. Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, May 3, 2023, page 2, lines 6-9. The matter proceeded to trial on whether the applicant was entitled to TTD, after being terminated while working modified duties. Id. at page 2, lines 20-23. The parties stipulated that the applicant was working modified duties at the time of his termination on January 10, 2023. Id. at page 2, lines 17- 18. The applicant testified on his own behalf, in court, and Ms.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was working modified duties at the time of termination on January 10, 2023.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Establishes eligibility for temporary disability benefits during modified duty period.
From the decision · page 4II. FACTS: The claim herein involves an admitted specific injury that took place on August 30, 2022, to the applicant's right knee, while he worked as a delivery associate for defendant, Villagrana Logistics. Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, May 3, 2023, page 2, lines 6-9. The matter proceeded to trial on whether the applicant was entitled to TTD, after being terminated while working modified duties. Id. at page 2, lines 20-23. The parties stipulated that the applicant was working modified duties at the time of his termination on January 10, 2023. Id. at page 2, lines 17- 18. The applicant testified on his own behalf, in court, and Ms.
Defendant did not establish good cause for termination despite alleging multiple company policy violations.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 8III. DISCUSSION: 1. THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT TRIAL BY DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE FOR APPLICANT'S TERMINATION: Petitioner refers to the case of Butterball Turkey Co. v. WCAB (Esquivel) (1999) 65 CCC 61, as support that they are not liable for TTD benefits. Specifically, petitioner notes that the court in the case "held that if an employer is accommodating an applicant's work restrictions, but then the applicant is terminated for good cause, wholly unrelated to his workers' compensation injuries, then no temporary disability benefits will be owed by the workers' compensation carrier." Petition for Reconsideration, page 4, lines 4-8, and page 6, lines 20-23. Petitioner argues that the applicant had been "reprimanded numerous times, beginning in December of 2022, that he was stealing company hours and had to comply with company policy in order to not be terminated." Id. at page 5, lines 22-24. Further, that the applicant had "continued to violate company policy multiple times despite warnings from Villagrana Logistics to comply, and the applicant's absence from work on January 5, 2023 and January 6, 2023 were just two of many, multiple instances of company violation." Id.
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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Butterball Turkey Co. v. WCAB (Esquivel) (1999) 65 CCC 61
An employer is not liable for temporary disability if the injured employee could have continued to work modified duty but for the employee's termination for cause.
Petitioner failed to prove good cause for termination, so temporary disability benefits remain owed.
From the decision · page 8III. DISCUSSION: 1. THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT TRIAL BY DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH GOOD CAUSE FOR APPLICANT'S TERMINATION: Petitioner refers to the case of Butterball Turkey Co. v. WCAB (Esquivel) (1999) 65 CCC 61, as support that they are not liable for TTD benefits. Specifically, petitioner notes that the court in the case "held that if an employer is accommodating an applicant's work restrictions, but then the applicant is terminated for good cause, wholly unrelated to his workers' compensation injuries, then no temporary disability benefits will be owed by the workers' compensation carrier." Petition for Reconsideration, page 4, lines 4-8, and page 6, lines 20-23. Petitioner argues that the applicant had been "reprimanded numerous times, beginning in December of 2022, that he was stealing company hours and had to comply with company policy in order to not be terminated." Id. at page 5, lines 22-24. Further, that the applicant had "continued to violate company policy multiple times despite warnings from Villagrana Logistics to comply, and the applicant's absence from work on January 5, 2023 and January 6, 2023 were just two of many, multiple instances of company violation." Id.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's credible testimony and lack of substantial evidence from defendant to prove good cause for termination.
Lack of communication between defendant and modified duty location supervisor, and defendant's failure to prove company policy violations with specific evidence.
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.