When they must send it
• Together with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity or • Within 14 days of knowledge that the injury is permanent and stationary or has caused no permanent disability.
The deadline this notice puts on you
You must notify me in writing of your objection to the determination of the treating physician within thirty days of the date you received the treating physician’s report. To be eligible, you must have an Award for permanent partial disability, must not have received an offer of Modified or Alternate work from your employer and have not returned to work for the employer within sixty days of the termination of temporary disability benefits.
Quoted from the model notice below. Your letter should say the same — if it does not, that is worth asking about.
Rule text
California Labor Code § 4062 · 20 unspecified
Trigger: receipt of the treating physician report
(a) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney.…
California Labor Code § 4062 · 30 unspecified
Trigger: receipt of the treating physician report
(a) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney.…
Quoted from the statute, marked computed. The deadline table is a draft extraction — read the official code if the two disagree.
The rule behind it
8 CCR Title 8, CCR §9812(e)(3)
The official model notice
BENEFIT NOTICE INSTRUCTION MANUAL Claims Administrator Name Address City_State_Zip Telephone Number [include if available] Website address Date [Option] SENT VIA E-MAIL TO employee’s e- mail address Employee Employer: Address Date of Injury: City_State_Zip Claim Number: NOTICE REGARDING PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS DENIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR NAME is handling your workers' compensation claim on behalf of EMPLOYER NAME. This notice is to advise you of the status of disability benefits for your workers' compensation injury on the date shown above. On DATE you (choose one) returned to work / were released to return to work / were discharged from care. [A. Select 1 or 2] (1) Based upon the report of DATE from PHYSICIAN’S NAME, (select one) your treating physician / a Qualified Medical Evaluator / an Agreed Medical Evaluator, (2) Based on (insert non-medical or other basis for determination), you have recovered from your injury with no permanent disability. For this reason, no permanent disability payments are payable. …
Published by the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the Benefit Notice Instruction Manual. Excerpt — read the full manual at the source. p.51.
Source · dir.ca.gov →When this went wrong
Decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on this subject. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF.
- ADJ8760173 · 2026-10-08 · Santa Ana District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed on December 27, 2012, as an electrician, sustained an industrial injury to his back, left shoulder, right knee, left ankle, psyche, urologic system, internal system, and in the form of sexual dysfunction, resulting in 100% permanent disability without apportionment. Defendant contends that the WCJ erred in awarding 100% permanent disability without apportionment, arguing that the award incorrectly assigns liability for permanent disability not caused by the industrial injury and fails to apply the non-industrial apportionment established by the Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). Specifically, defendant argues that the reporting of applicant’s vocational expert, Ray Largo, M.A., does not constitute substantial evidence because he disregarded the medical apportionment determinations provided by the QMEs. Furthermore, defendant asserts that the WCJ erred by admitting and relying on the medical reporting of Mohammed Zain Vally, M.D., contending Dr. Vally’s reports are inadmissible and do
The WCAB rejected the medical apportionment determinations by QMEs as legally invalid and lacking substantial medical evidence. The vocational expert's alternative analysis based on purely industrial factors, including psychiatric injury and medication side effects, was accepted, supporting the 100% permanent disability award without apportionment.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ8492544 · 2026-09-29 · Salinas District OfficePermanent disability ratingdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Applicant claimed injury to her cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, headaches, sleep loss, hypertension, and diabetes while employed as a management analyst by defendant County of Monterey on April 30, 2008. Defendant admits injury to the cervical spine, face consisting of the trigeminal nerve, and headaches but disputes injury in the form of sleep loss and diabetes. The parties have selected Charles Martin, D.C., as the chiropractic Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Massoud Mahmoudi, D.O., Ph.D., as the QME in internal medicine, and A. K. Bhattacharyya, M.D., as the QME in neurology. On December 9, 2021, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision, in relevant part, the disputed body parts/systems of sleep loss, hypertension and diabetes. (Minutes of Hearing, dated December 9, 2021, at p. 3:3.) The parties also placed in issue permanent disability and “the applicability of the Combined Value Chart versus Additive Method for impairment.” (Id. at p. 3:6.) Neither party offered witness testimony, and the WCJ ordered the matter submitted for decision as of December 17, 2021. On February 2, 2022, the WCJ issued her F&A, determining in relevant part that applicant sustained her burden of establishing industrial injury in the form of hypertension, but not in the form of diabetes or sleep loss. (Finding of Fact No.
The WCJ found and the WCAB affirmed that the Combined Values Chart (CVC) was appropriately applied to combine impairment ratings, as the evidence did not support adding impairments due to lack of substantial medical evidence for diabetes and sleep loss as industrial injuries.
Official decision · page 2 → - ADJ11763808 · 2026-09-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 16, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant, while employed on April 20, 2015 as a deli clerk, occupational group number 322 by “Safeway” 1 sustained injury arising out of and in the course of 0F
The WCJ found applicant sustained injury arising out of employment causing 100% permanent disability and requiring further medical treatment. The Board affirmed the 100% PD finding and amended the award to provide for future medical care generally, based on medical evidence and legal standards for causation and treatment.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ10401484 · 2026-09-28 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4County of Kern (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 (Appeals Board en banc) (Vigil), the Appeals Board held that an injured employee can rebut the CVC in the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule and add impairments where they can establish the impact of each impairment on the activities of daily living (ADLs). In addition, they must show either (a) there is no overlap between the effects on ADLs between the body parts rated, or (b) there is overlap but the overlap increases or amplifies the impact on the overlapping ADLs. We explained that medical expertise is required: In determining whether the application of the CVC table has been rebutted in a case, an applicant must present evidence explaining what impact applicant’s impairments have had upon their ADLs. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that the impact upon the ADLs overlaps, without more, an applicant has not rebutted the CVC table. Where the medical evidence demonstrates that there is effectively an absence of overlap, the CVC table is rebutted, and it need not be used.
The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence from AME Dr. Lavorgna supporting addition of disabilities rather than using the combined values chart, based on the impact on activities of daily living and the need for a scooter, thus increasing the permanent disability rating to 74%.
Official decision · page 4 →