ADJ18573103 — California WCAB decision

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.

Temporary disabilityApplicant prevailedbilateral feet · hernia

The WCAB found that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on the credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony, rejecting the stale opinions of AMEs Dr. Levy and Dr. Woodcox regarding permanent and stationary status. The delay in payment was not unreasonable due to genuine medical doubt, so the 25% penalty under section 5814 was rescinded, but a 10% increase on delayed payments was awarded under section 4650(d). Attorney fees under section 5813 were rescinded and replaced with a 15% fee on delayed payments.

From the decision · page 8II. We will affirm the WCJ’s finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026 going forward. Temporary disability indemnity is compensation for temporary impairment in earning ability caused by the industrial injury which is reasonably expected to be cured or materially improved with proper medical treatment or over time. (Lab. Code, §§ 4453 and 4653; see Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463, 473 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) We adopt and incorporate the WCJ’s report on this issue as follows: THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AWARD OF TTD FROM JANUARY 9, 2026 AND ONGOING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND NOT IN ERROR

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony.

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.

PTPRelied upon · pain specialist

Found applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, with work restrictions related to hernia and feet pain.

Opinion was credited as substantial medical evidence reflecting current condition and supported by applicant's credible testimony.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

AMERejected

Concluded applicant sustained cumulative trauma to both feet arising out of employment and was permanent and stationary as of December 16, 2024.

Opinion was found stale and not substantial medical evidence for permanent and stationary status as it did not reflect current condition.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

AMERejected · internal medicine

Concluded applicant was permanent and stationary as of January 22, 2025, and able to return to full duty, but opinion was stale and not substantial medical evidence due to lack of current medical history.

Opinion was rejected as stale and not substantial medical evidence because it did not consider current condition and treatment by PTP Kamdar.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775

A medical opinion of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) is ordinarily followed unless there is good reason to find it unpersuasive.

The WCAB applied this presumption but found the AME opinions stale and unpersuasive due to lack of current medical evidence and treatment history.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

A penalty under Labor Code section 5814 is payable only when payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused; a delay is not unreasonable if the defendant had genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint as to liability.

The WCAB found the delay in payment after January 9, 2026, was not unreasonable due to reliance on AME opinions, so the 25% penalty was rescinded but a 10% increase under section 4650(d) was awarded.

From the decision · page 10(Lab. Code, § 5814(a).) As we stated in our en banc opinion in Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1331 (Appeals Bd. en banc), “[S]ection 5814(a) … provides that a penalty is payable only ‘[w]hen payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused.’ (Emphasis added.) A delay or a refusal to pay is not ‘unreasonable’ if the defendant had ‘genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint as to [its] liability.’ (Kerley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 223, 230 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 152].)” While defendant did delay payment of TTD after January 9, 2026, the delay was not unreasonable as it was based on the conclusions by the AMEs in this case that applicant had become permanent and stationary. AME Dr. Woodcox stated that applicant became permanent and stationary on December 16, 2024, in his Initial Comprehensive Agreed Medical Evaluation of January 15, 2025, and confirmed that it was “more than likely” applicant reached maximum medical improvement MMI in his reevaluation report of January 8, 2026. (Jt. Ex. 101, p. 22; Jt. Ex. 102, p. 30.) AME Dr.

ADJ18573103 · August 17, 2026

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page