What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Appeals Board within 60 days of case transmission on December 9, 2024.
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 employer failed to prove that modified or alternative work was both available and offered to the applicant, thus the applicant was entitled to temporary disability benefits for the period claimed.
From the decision · page 4In this case, the employer has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that it
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant had a left shoulder injury with medical restrictions limiting lifting to five pounds from October 7, 2022 through early May 2023, then 20 pounds until June 14, 2023.
Favours Applicant prevailed
These restrictions established the applicant's temporary partial disability and need for benefits.
Employer did not provide a valid offer of modified or alternative work within applicant's restrictions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without a bona fide offer of work, employer remains liable for temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 64/2 schedule to meet daily staffing needs. Employees would have to be on a 4/2 schedule to be full time in order to meet daily staffing needs." However, Exhibit G is not a valid offer of modified or alternative work. In fact, there is no documentary evidence of defendant's use of Form 10133.35 or any other written evidence of a valid offer of modified or alternative work. On this record, defendant has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that it effectively offered modified duties to applicant and was therefore not relieved of its liability for temporary disability.
WCJ's credibility determinations were upheld as there was no substantial evidence to reject them.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility of witnesses supported the findings on availability and offer of work.
From the decision · page 6Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
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.
Temporarily partially disabled applicant from October 7, 2022 with a restriction of no lifting over five pounds.
Medical evidence from company clinic physician Dr. Kristen Wong on the date of injury established temporary partial disability and lifting restrictions.
Eased lifting restrictions to 20 pounds in May 2023 and released applicant to full duties on June 14, 2023.
Medical evidence from Dr. Barba showed progressive easing of restrictions and eventual full release to work.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code sections 4650-4657; Labor Code section 4658.1; California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10116.9; Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 389; Skelton v. WCAB 39 Cal. App 5th 1103
An employer must establish that work within the applicant's restrictions is both available and offered to be relieved of liability for temporary disability benefits.
The employer did not meet the burden of proof to show a valid offer of modified or alternative work, thus remains liable for temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 4In this case, the employer has not met the burden of proof necessary to establish that it
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Credibility determinations of the WCJ were given great weight because the WCJ observed witness demeanor and there was no substantial evidence to reject those determinations.
From the decision · page 6Moreover, we have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determination. (Id.)
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.