What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's condition was found permanent and stationary as of August 27, 2014, and remained so through August 27, 2019.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This finding contradicts claims of temporary disability for time off work after this date, undermining entitlement to additional temporary disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 3Dr. Renbaum stated that applicant's condition was "felt to be permanent and stationary" as
of the August 27, 2014, evaluation. (Def. Exh. K, p. 17.)
Work status notes by Drs. Mazur and Schmidt did not describe medical treatment or explain why applicant was taken off work for the listed days.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of explanation and treatment notes means these notes do not constitute substantial evidence for temporary disability.
From the decision · page 7However, having reviewed the record it appears that the work status notes by Drs. Mazur
and Schmidt (App. Exhs. 6 and 7) do not describe the medical treatment applicant received nor do
they explain why applicant was taken off work for the days listed. (App. Exh. 6, Kai Uwe Mazur,
M.D., various dates May 26, 2015, to June 20, 2019; App. Exh. 7, Eric S. Schmidt, M.D., p. 1
January 23, 2015, p. 2 March 1, 2017.) The trial record does not include treatment notes pertaining
to the dates identified in the work status notes. Absent information addressing the nature of the
treatment applicant received, the cause of the need for treatment, or why the treatment required
that applicant be taken off work, the doctors' work status notes, do not constitute substantial
medical evidence for the purpose of determining whether applicant was temporarily totally
disabled as a result of the treatment. (Place v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372
[35 Cal.Comp.Cases 525]; Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162 [36
Cal.Comp.Cases 93].)
Dr. Renbaum's opinion on temporary disability for time off work for medical treatment was based on an incorrect legal theory and lack of supporting medical records.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This undermines the basis for awarding temporary disability indemnity for medical treatment time off.
From the decision · page 7Also, AME Dr. Renbaum stated that applicant's condition was permanent and stationary
in his June 26, 2015, August 8, 2016, January 5, 2018, and August 27, 2019, reports. (See Def.
Exhs. J, I, E, and D.) An injured worker's disability cannot be both permanent and temporary at
the same time. (Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Austin) (1993) 16
Cal.App.4th 227, 235 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 323].) As noted, Dr. Renbaum determined that
applicant's condition was permanent and stationary in June of 2015, and remained permanent and
stationary through August of 2019. This is inconsistent with his statement that, "It seems
reasonable to state that these multiple times off because of her upper extremities [as identified in
correspondence from applicant's former counsel] should be considered Temporary Total
Disability." (Def. Exh. G, p. 2.) Dr Renbaum was not provided any medical records for review,
related to the "multiple times off" and in none of his reports did Dr. Renbaum explain or otherwise
address the inconsistencies in his opinions as to applicant's disability status. We further note, it
appears that Dr. Renbaum's opinion that applicant was entitled to temporary disability indemnity
for "time off work to seek medical care" (Def. Exh. D, p. 52) was based on an incorrect legal