What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; prior Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued on September 27, 2024, which denied further section 4850 benefits beyond 52 weeks; the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration; the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior Findings and Order, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.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 Appeals Board found that section 4850 benefits are payable on a daily basis for up to one year (365 days), not limited to 52 weeks, and that the employer cannot credit salary earned during part-time work against the 4850 benefits entitlement.
From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained injury in the form of presumptively compensable cancer. She lost time from work as a result of that injury. Specifically, she was totally disabled for the period October 31, 2022 through September 11, 2023. For this period, she received her full salary replacement pursuant to Labor Code § 4850. She was then returned to work on a part time basis, working 3 days a week and receiving 4850 benefits so that she received her full salary replacement: part from salary and part in 4850 benefits. Defendant ended this on October 27, 2023, at which point applicant had received 52 weeks of 4850 benefits - after which she received partial temporary disability benefits.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was totally disabled from October 31, 2022 through September 11, 2023 and received full salary replacement under section 4850 for that period.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Establishes the initial period of full section 4850 benefits entitlement.
From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained injury in the form of presumptively compensable cancer. She lost time from work as a result of that injury. Specifically, she was totally disabled for the period October 31, 2022 through September 11, 2023. For this period, she received her full salary replacement pursuant to Labor Code § 4850. She was then returned to work on a part time basis, working 3 days a week and receiving 4850 benefits so that she received her full salary replacement: part from salary and part in 4850 benefits. Defendant ended this on October 27, 2023, at which point applicant had received 52 weeks of 4850 benefits - after which she received partial temporary disability benefits.
Applicant returned to work part-time (3 days per week) and received a combination of salary and section 4850 benefits for the remaining days, which defendant ended after 52 weeks of benefits.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Key dispute was whether the 52 weeks of benefits should be calculated on a weekly or daily basis.
From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained injury in the form of presumptively compensable cancer. She lost time from work as a result of that injury. Specifically, she was totally disabled for the period October 31, 2022 through September 11, 2023. For this period, she received her full salary replacement pursuant to Labor Code § 4850. She was then returned to work on a part time basis, working 3 days a week and receiving 4850 benefits so that she received her full salary replacement: part from salary and part in 4850 benefits. Defendant ended this on October 27, 2023, at which point applicant had received 52 weeks of 4850 benefits - after which she received partial temporary disability benefits.
The Appeals Board held that section 4850 benefits are payable for an aggregate of 365 days, not limited to 52 weeks, and that salary earned during part-time work days cannot be credited against the 4850 benefits entitlement.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This legal interpretation was the basis for granting reconsideration and rescinding the prior order.
From the decision · page 5Defendant wishes to take credit for an entire week of section 4850 benefits, when applicant earned regular salary for three days of the week. However, as discussed in Eason, supra, and pursuant to section 4854 defendant is not permitted to combine payment of salary with payment of 4850 benefits.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4850
Provides entitlement to leave of absence with pay for up to one year for disability arising out of employment.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4854
Prohibits concurrent payment of disability indemnity and wages or salary.
From the decision · page 4Only the one salary is payable, as Labor Code section 4854 provides: "No disability indemnity shall be paid to any such officer or employee concurrently with wages or salary payments." Therefore any payments of salary between intervals of leaves of absence must be considered salary and not payments for temporary disability.
Eason v. Riverside (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 190
Supports that salary earned during attempts to return to work should not be charged against the leave of absence entitlement under section 4850.
From the decision · page 4Quite aside from section 3202 and the cases, fair play and logic impel the conclusion that an injured employee who works between intervals of disability should not be penalized by having such periods of employment charged against his right to compensation resulting from temporary disability. Conversely, the employer who is receiving the services of the employee should not be allowed to
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.