What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of WCJ's Amended Findings, Award and Order of Fact of September 25, 2023, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.
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.
Dr. Renbaum's medical opinion that applicant was not permanent and stationary and had not recovered sufficiently to return to work supported the WCJ's finding of temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to present.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Findings, Award and Order of Fact of September 25, 2023, wherein, as relevant to the instant Petition, it was found that while employed as a line worker during a cumulative period ending August 21, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to her wrists, hands and neck causing temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to the present and continuing.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained industrial injury to wrists, hands and neck causing temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to present.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact supported the WCJ's finding of temporary disability and denial of defendant's petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Amended Findings, Award and Order of Fact of September 25, 2023, wherein, as relevant to the instant Petition, it was found that while employed as a line worker during a cumulative period ending August 21, 2020, applicant sustained industrial injury to her wrists, hands and neck causing temporary disability from December 1, 2022 to the present and continuing.
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's bilateral wrist/hand condition and neck cumulative trauma injury medically probable to be work-related; wrist/hand condition permanent and stationary; neck not permanent and stationary; applicant permanently precluded from repetitive forceful gripping, pushing, pulling or lifting more than 20 pounds; applicant not recovered sufficiently to return to normal work, supporting temporary disability.
Dr. Renbaum's opinion that applicant was not permanent and stationary and had not recovered sufficiently to return to work supported the finding of temporary disability.
From the decision · page 1As explained below, we will deny the defendant's Petition. Applicant was evaluated by agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Joel Renbaum, M.D. In his initial report of May 3, 2021, he described applicant's regular job duties as being required to "continuously stand, walk, frequently climb, grip, reach, reach overhead, bend squat, push/pull, kneel, lift up to fifty pounds, and occasionally crawl." (May 3, 2021 report at p. 2.) In a report of December 1, 2022, Dr. Renbaum found it "medically probable that the patient's bilateral wrist/hand condition is related to her ongoing work activities" and also "medically probable that the patient sustained a[n] industrially based cumulative trauma injury to the neck spine as a result of her work activities through August 21, 2020." (December 1, 2022 report at p. 8.) While applicant's wrist/hand condition was found permanent and stationary, Dr. Renbaum wrote, "the
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Lab. Code, §§ 4650-4657; Gonzales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 843; Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal. App. 3d 856
Temporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period until recovery or permanent and stationary status.
Applied to determine that applicant was temporarily disabled from December 1, 2022 to present based on medical opinion and injury status.
From the decision · page 2the time 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 Bd. (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].) The purpose of temporary disability indemnity is to provide a steady source of income during the time the injured worker is off work. (Gonzales, supra, at p. 1478.)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Renbaum's medical reports describing applicant's work duties and injury status
From the decision · page 1As explained below, we will deny the defendant's Petition. Applicant was evaluated by agreed medical evaluator orthopedist Joel Renbaum, M.D. In his initial report of May 3, 2021, he described applicant's regular job duties as being required to "continuously stand, walk, frequently climb, grip, reach, reach overhead, bend squat, push/pull, kneel, lift up to fifty pounds, and occasionally crawl." (May 3, 2021 report at p. 2.) In a report of December 1, 2022, Dr. Renbaum found it "medically probable that the patient's bilateral wrist/hand condition is related to her ongoing work activities" and also "medically probable that the patient sustained a[n] industrially based cumulative trauma injury to the neck spine as a result of her work activities through August 21, 2020." (December 1, 2022 report at p. 8.) While applicant's wrist/hand condition was found permanent and stationary, Dr. Renbaum wrote, "the
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.