Temporary disability

What the Appeals Board did with this

Newest released decisions that turned on this issue. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF. Litigated tail — not a win rate, not a settlement value.

• ADJ9826933 · 2026-06-23 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.

  The Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ21050654 · 2026-06-15 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5The issue before us is whether applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits where applicant's employment was terminated the day after the industrial injury because his work permit expired, and applicant has not been legally permitted to work since. Here, we find the record is sufficient to affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date he stopped working, for the reasons set forth in the Report. Defendant has not met its burden of proof necessary to establish that defendant made applicant a bona fide offer of modified work to relieve itself of liability to pay applicant temporary disability benefits.2

  The defendant failed to prove that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions, despite the applicant's termination due to an expired work permit. The WCJ's credibility determinations were upheld, and the evidence did not meet the burden of proof to relieve the defendant of liability for temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ15295325 · 2026-06-15 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7However, we affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and that she was not completely shut out of the labor market for the reasons stated in the Report, which we quote below:

  The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was not precluded from vocational rehabilitation and was not completely shut out of the labor market, thus did not rebut the scheduled rating.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ21369860 · 2026-05-18 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

  The medical evidence showed applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024, and no contrary substantial evidence was presented to extend temporary disability beyond that date.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ19532643 · 2026-05-18 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7At trial, when the Applicant was presented with this deposition testimony, she explained that she may have misspoken at the deposition, and that it was more a desire to retire just from CVS, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 12-14). She stated that she is planning to renew her pharmaceutical license, and that as of the date of trial, she was taking the necessary classes towards that end, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 9-12). She further testified that a job in the pharmaceutical field was offered to her sometime in April or May of 2024, but due to her shoulder injury, she did not accept it, and that she does not [at this time] feel comfortable returning to the work force, (MOH/SOE page 5, lines 17-25). She is currently looking online for work opportunities, and testified that when she retired from CVS, she told management that she was intending to retire from that company only, (MOH/SOE page 6, lines 1-5). No witnesses from management at CVS provided testimony contradicting the last statement.

  The WCJ found applicant intended to retire only from the employer, not the labor market entirely, supported by credible trial testimony showing willingness to work post-retirement despite injury, and no contrary evidence from defendant.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16023818 · 2026-05-08 · Van Nuys District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.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 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.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ10300370 · 2026-04-27 · Lodi District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5We affirm the finding that applicant's asthma and hearing injury did not cause any periods of temporary disability. Applicant had the burden of proof on this issue (Cal. Lab. Code, § 3202.5, 5705) and did not present any medical evidence of temporary disability caused by asthma or lack of hearing.

  Applicant did not present medical evidence to prove temporary disability caused by asthma or hearing injury, so the finding of no temporary disability was affirmed.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20709426 · 2026-04-20 · Bakersfield District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.7The holding in Huston requires that in order to be relieved of potential liability for temporary disability for an injured worker capable of returning to modified duties, the employer must establish that work within applicant's restrictions is both available and offered. An offer of regular, modified, or alternative work must be bona fide. (Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 28, 43 (Appeals Board en banc).) A resignation cannot be interpreted as a refusal of modified work and cannot be used as a basis for denying temporary disability if modified work was not offered. (City of Seaside v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598 (writ den.).) Moreover, where an injured worker's resignation is a result of the injury, the worker cannot be said to be unwilling to work. (See Gonzales, supra, at p. 1479.)

  The employer did not make a bona fide offer of modified work in writing and did not appropriately accommodate the applicant's work restrictions. The resignation was due to the effects of the industrial injury, not a voluntary non-industrial reason. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits.

  Official decision · page 7 →