Only one medical report was admitted into evidence, the June 3, 2022 report from Dr. Lance Miller, which found the applicant temporarily totally disabled.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This uncontradicted and unimpeached report was the sole substantial evidence supporting entitlement to temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 9Defendants point out this authority as support for their own arguments, however, the
undersigned would argue that this authority supports the Findings and Award that issued in
this matter. The Board was presented with only one medical report, that of Dr. Lance Miller,
DC, dated June 3, 2022 (Applicant's exhibit 1). In that report, which is uncontradicted and
unimpeached by any evidence admitted at the expedited trial, the treating physician finds the
applicant TTD. The report is a form issued by the State of California, titled Doctor's First
Report of Occupational Injury or Illness. All required information is filled in and noted. The
mechanism of injury appears consistent with the applicant's complaints. A physical
examination was done. Diagnoses were issued, medical treatment needed to cure or relieve
the applicant of her injuries is addressed. The report is bare bones but is not insubstantial.
Defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and offered to applicant within restrictions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without evidence of available and offered modified work, defendant cannot avoid liability for temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and
that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not
authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely
manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an
opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The
statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an
injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for
an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34
Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when
the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and
stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281,
1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
Defendant failed to timely authorize medical treatment and referrals, delaying applicant's recovery and contributing to lack of medical evidence.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure likely prolonged the applicant's temporary disability period, supporting ongoing benefits.
From the decision · page 5Here, according to the record, defendant did not offer evidence that work was available and
that it offered applicant modified work. Moreover, it appears from the record that defendant did not
authorize applicant's required medical treatment ordered by Dr. Miller on June 3, 2022 in a timely
manner. It appears that prior to the stipulation at trial on August 17, 2022, applicant was denied an
opportunity to cure or materially improve her medical condition from her industrial injury. The
statutory duty to pay temporary disability compensation continues during the period in which an
injured worker, while unable to work, is undergoing medical diagnostic procedure and treatment for
an industrial injury. (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34
Cal.3d 159, 168 [666 P.2d 14, 193 Cal. Rptr. 157, 48 Cal. Comp. Cases 566].) The duty ends when
the worker is able to return to work or when his or her medical condition becomes permanent and
stationary. (Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281,
1291-1292 [70 P.3d 1076, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 665, 68 Cal. Comp. Cases 831].)
Favours Applicant prevailed
The stipulation was binding and not disturbed, establishing the rate for temporary disability benefits.