What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ decision of February 11, 2026 rescinded; matter returned to WCJ for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Order issued on February 11, 2026, which denied setting aside the Stipulations and Award. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings.
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.
The WCAB found that the Stipulations did not resolve the period of temporary disability from December 29, 2021 through June 3, 2022, and that the WCJ failed to properly analyze the restoration of time and payment rate. The WCAB granted reconsideration and returned the matter for further proceedings to determine the correct periods and amounts owed.
From the decision · page 7Here, we apply the above reasoning with respect to our responsibility to consider the actual language of the agreement to the Stipulations. Paragraphs 1 and 2 require that the information must be correctly provided. Here, it was not. In Paragraph 1, which is a stipulation as to injury and the date of injury, the injury was described as a specific injury. In Paragraph 2, which is a stipulation as to temporary disability, including periods of payment and rate of payment, the only statement was "SEE BELOW." Moreover, there is nothing in Paragraph 9 to indicate what type of temporary
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Stipulations did not specify the period or rate of temporary disability benefits for December 29, 2021 through June 3, 2022.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This lack of specification meant the WCJ failed to properly analyze the restoration of time and payment rate, leading to the rescission of the award.
From the decision · page 7Here, we apply the above reasoning with respect to our responsibility to consider the actual language of the agreement to the Stipulations. Paragraphs 1 and 2 require that the information must be correctly provided. Here, it was not. In Paragraph 1, which is a stipulation as to injury and the date of injury, the injury was described as a specific injury. In Paragraph 2, which is a stipulation as to temporary disability, including periods of payment and rate of payment, the only statement was "SEE BELOW." Moreover, there is nothing in Paragraph 9 to indicate what type of temporary
Medical evidence showed applicant was temporarily disabled until June 7, 2022, including treating physician's work restrictions and IME's opinion of total temporary disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports applicant's claim for restoration of time and temporary disability benefits for the period before MMI.
From the decision · page 2FACTS Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury in the form of breast cancer while employed by defendant as a police officer up to February 2, 2022. The injury was initially plead as a specific injury of February 2, 2022. The parties entered into Stipulations with Request for Award (Stipulations), and an Award issued on March 27, 2025. On May 19, 2022, Dr. Priya Mitra, a radiation oncologist, took applicant off work from that date through at least June 6, 2022, due to the side effects of her treatment. (Applicant's Exhibit 8.) The parties utilized an Independent Medical Evaluator (IME), Dr. Lipper, to comment on the claimed injury. He issued a report dated May 7, 2023. (Applicant's Exhibit 6.) He found that applicant's breast cancer was presumptively related to employment, provided a rating, and found her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of the time radiation concluded. He was silent on periods of disability in this report. On September 17, 2024, Dr.
Applicant's credible testimony confirmed partial restoration of sick leave hours and informal work accommodations during treatment.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the finding that full restoration was not completed, favoring applicant's position.
From the decision · page 5Applicant was provided restoration of two hours for each day that she received treatment between December 29, 2021 through June 3, 2022. (Id. at 8:2-4.) She was asked about her recollection of the PTCS from the proceedings in March of 2025. She confirmed that she did review it but did not recall whether all the disputed dates were listed on that document. (Id. at 8:20- 21.) She also confirmed reading and signing the Stipulations and noted that the stipulation did not set forth the alleged unpaid dates set forth within the PTCS. (Id. at p. 8:24-9:3.) She discussed the email dated April 14, 2025 and confirmed that the email does confirm restoration of some dates, including 20.5 hours but she was unsure whether those hours stemmed from the stipulation. (Id. at 9:23-10:1.)
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 breast cancer presumptively related to employment, provided a rating, and found maximum medical improvement as of the end of radiation treatment. Confirmed applicant was totally temporarily disabled until return to work on June 7, 2022.
From the decision · page 2FACTS Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury in the form of breast cancer while employed by defendant as a police officer up to February 2, 2022. The injury was initially plead as a specific injury of February 2, 2022. The parties entered into Stipulations with Request for Award (Stipulations), and an Award issued on March 27, 2025. On May 19, 2022, Dr. Priya Mitra, a radiation oncologist, took applicant off work from that date through at least June 6, 2022, due to the side effects of her treatment. (Applicant's Exhibit 8.) The parties utilized an Independent Medical Evaluator (IME), Dr. Lipper, to comment on the claimed injury. He issued a report dated May 7, 2023. (Applicant's Exhibit 6.) He found that applicant's breast cancer was presumptively related to employment, provided a rating, and found her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of the time radiation concluded. He was silent on periods of disability in this report. On September 17, 2024, Dr.
Took applicant off work from May 19, 2022 through at least June 6, 2022 due to side effects of breast cancer treatment.
From the decision · page 2FACTS Applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury in the form of breast cancer while employed by defendant as a police officer up to February 2, 2022. The injury was initially plead as a specific injury of February 2, 2022. The parties entered into Stipulations with Request for Award (Stipulations), and an Award issued on March 27, 2025. On May 19, 2022, Dr. Priya Mitra, a radiation oncologist, took applicant off work from that date through at least June 6, 2022, due to the side effects of her treatment. (Applicant's Exhibit 8.) The parties utilized an Independent Medical Evaluator (IME), Dr. Lipper, to comment on the claimed injury. He issued a report dated May 7, 2023. (Applicant's Exhibit 6.) He found that applicant's breast cancer was presumptively related to employment, provided a rating, and found her at maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of the time radiation concluded. He was silent on periods of disability in this report. On September 17, 2024, Dr.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 5803 and 5804
The Appeals Board has continuing jurisdiction to rescind, alter, or amend awards for good cause, including legal error, within five years of injury (Lab. Code, §§ 5803, 5804).
The Board found good cause to rescind the WCJ's award due to legal error and granted reconsideration.
From the decision · page 6Subject to the limitations of section 5804, "The appeals board has continuing jurisdiction over all its orders, decisions, and awards made and entered under the provisions of [Division 4]... At any time, upon notice and after the opportunity to be heard is given to the parties in interest, the appeals board may rescind, alter, or amend any order, decision, or award, good cause appearing therefor." (Lab. Code, § 5803.) A legal error presents good cause to rescind, alter, or amend an award. Moreover, section 5804 provides that a petition filed within five years may be filed. The
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board (Lab. Code, § 5909).
The Board timely acted on the petition for reconsideration within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 6Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on March 9, 2026 and 60 days from the date of transmission is May 8, 2026. This decision is issued by or on May 8, 2026 so that we have timely acted on the petition as required by Section 5909(a).
Labor Code section 4850
Section 4850 entitles a full-time public safety employee disabled by injury to a leave of absence without loss of salary in lieu of temporary disability payments, for up to one year or until retirement on permanent disability pension.
The Board instructed the WCJ to consider the application of section 4850 and the amount of sick time to be restored.
From the decision · page 9Whenever any person listed in subdivision (b), who is employed on a regular, full- time basis, and is disabled, whether temporarily or permanently, by injury or illness arising out of and in the course of the person's duties, the person shall become entitled, regardless of the person's period of service with the city, county, or district, to a leave of absence while so disabled without loss of salary in lieu of temporary disability payments or maintenance allowance payments, if any, that would be payable under this chapter, for the period of the disability, but not exceeding one year, or until that earlier date as the person is retired on permanent disability pension, and is actually receiving disability pension payments, or advanced disability pension payments pursuant to Section 4850.3.
Contract principles apply to compromise and release agreements; mutual consent and clear contract language are required for validity.
The Board found the Stipulations lacked clear agreement on temporary disability periods and payment rates, requiring further analysis.
From the decision · page 7disputes. The legal principles governing compromise and release agreements are the same as those governing other contracts. (Burbank Studios v. Workers' Co. Appeals Bd. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 929, 935.) For a compromise and release agreement to be effective, the necessary elements of a contract must exist, including an offer of settlement of a disputed claim by one of the parties and an acceptance by the other. (Id.) The essential elements of contract include the mutual consent of the parties. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1565, 1580.) There can be no contract unless there is a meeting of the minds and the parties mutually agree upon the same thing. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1565, 1580; Sackett v. Starr (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 128; Sieck v. Hall (1934) 139 Cal.App.279, 291; American Can Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (1909) 12 Cal.App. 133, 137.) The essential elements of contract also include consideration. (Civ. Code, § 1550, 1584, 1595, 1605, et seq., 1659.) Since a compromise and release is a written contract, the parties' intention should be ascertained, if possible, from the writing alone, and the clear language of the contract governs its interpretation if an absurdity is not involved. (Civ. Code, § 1638, 1639; TRB Investments, Inc. v.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony about partial restoration of sick leave hours and informal accommodations at work during treatment.
From the decision · page 5Applicant was provided restoration of two hours for each day that she received treatment between December 29, 2021 through June 3, 2022. (Id. at 8:2-4.) She was asked about her recollection of the PTCS from the proceedings in March of 2025. She confirmed that she did review it but did not recall whether all the disputed dates were listed on that document. (Id. at 8:20- 21.) She also confirmed reading and signing the Stipulations and noted that the stipulation did not set forth the alleged unpaid dates set forth within the PTCS. (Id. at p. 8:24-9:3.) She discussed the email dated April 14, 2025 and confirmed that the email does confirm restoration of some dates, including 20.5 hours but she was unsure whether those hours stemmed from the stipulation. (Id. at 9:23-10:1.)
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.