ADJ20695668 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, affirmed the WCJ's decision except to defer the issue of the temporary disability indemnity rate for further evidentiary development.

Applicant filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact, Award issued on March 3, 2026, challenging the temporary disability indemnity rate calculation.

Read the official decision →

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.

Temporary disabilityRemandedlow back · left shoulder · neck

The WCAB found the record insufficient to fairly determine the applicant's average weekly wage or earning capacity, deferring the issue for further evidentiary development.

From the decision · page 8The WCAB has a duty to further develop the record when there is a complete absence of (Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 393-395 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924]) or even insufficient (McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]) evidence on an issue. The WCAB has a constitutional mandate to ensure "substantial justice in all cases." (Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 403 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264].)

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's testimony about potential earnings and willingness to work after additional training was credible and supported by lack of rebuttal evidence from defendant.

From the decision · page 7In addition to agreeing with the WCJ that both parties failed to enter internet advertised salaries into the record, we also observe that defendant failed to offer any rebuttal evidence including witness testimony to applicant's assertions about potential earnings and his willingness to work after a few more hours of training. In fact, applicant asked for "a few more practice hours... To work on a few more driving skills with a coach. These included turning properly and backing up the truck." (MOH/SOE, January 27, 2026, at p. 6:6-7, 14-16.) Considering how the industrial event occurred, that neither applicant nor his trainer "felt they could put the [snow] chains on properly" (Id. at p. 4:2-12), applicant's request for a few more hours of training should not be conflated with an unwillingness to work. Accordingly, if the WCJ had found the applicant's testimony about potential earnings to be credible and substantial on that issue, that would have supported a finding of the same.

Documentary evidencefavours Defendant prevailed

Defendant's payroll records were the only objective evidence of earnings but did not reflect applicant's earning capacity fairly due to short employment period.

From the decision · page 6The only objective piece of evidence admitted into evidence by the parties was the earnings records in Defendant's Exhibit A, showing what the applicant was earning while employed as a driver trainee for defendant. In his testimony at trial, the petitioner stated that it was his impression that once he became an experienced driver, he could earn 80 to 90 thousand dollars a year as a starting driver, and that that could go up to as high as 130,000 dollars a year with experience. He stated that when he started with the defendant employer, he possessed a commercial driver's license (Summary of Testimony, page 6: 1-3). He testified that he got this information on potential pay from the employer's own website (Summary of Testimony, page 6: 8-9), but neither party entered any confirming information into evidence.... Petitioner further testified that Western offered him a truck to drive, but he turned that offer down conditional on some further training (Summary of Testimony, page 6:5-7; 14-16; 22-25; page 7:1-2). Pay was not discussed.

ADJ20695668 · June 12, 2026

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page