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.

• ADJ22856965 · 2026-09-08 · San Francisco District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the merits, with regard to entitlement to temporary disability benefits beyond August 14, 2024, applicant essentially argues that defendant is estopped from relying on the permanent and stationary date in Dr. Feinberg’s report because defendant ignored Dr. Feinberg’s repeated opinion that applicant sustained industrial injury and compensable disability. 4 While we appreciate applicant’s rhetorical flourish, our decision must be based on the evidence in the record, and we have no power to punitively create further temporary disability because of unreasonable delays or bad faith litigation tactics. The Labor Code provides other remedies for this type of conduct (see, e.g., Lab. Code, §§ 5813, 5814). “[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].) Here, Dr. Feinberg opined that applicant’s condition reached permanent and stationary status on August 13, 2024.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ17096552 · 2026-09-04 · San Diego District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8disability. We defer the issue of temporary disability after February 1, 2024 pending further development of the record. Similarly, we defer the issue of any periods of temporary disability preceding August 10, 2022 pending further development of the record. Although the defendant also casts doubt on the temporary disability period based on “evidence” of applicant’s employment as a home health aid, the only evidence in the record was applicant’s testimony that he “stopped taking care of his son through IHSS in 2022.” (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence of March 16, 2022 trial at p. 4.) Accordingly, there is no evidence that applicant was employed during any periods for which we have found temporary disability. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Zurich’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award of June 15, 2026 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board that the Findings and Award of June 15, 2026 is AMENDED as follows:

  The WCAB amended the temporary disability period to start from August 10, 2022 through February 1, 2024, based on medical evidence from QME Dr. Hendel and the hospitalization of the applicant. The issue of temporary disability before or after these dates was deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ18573103 · 2026-08-17 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8II. We will affirm the WCJ’s finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026 going forward. Temporary disability indemnity is compensation for temporary impairment in earning ability caused by the industrial injury which is reasonably expected to be cured or materially improved with proper medical treatment or over time. (Lab. Code, §§ 4453 and 4653; see Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463, 473 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) We adopt and incorporate the WCJ’s report on this issue as follows: THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AWARD OF TTD FROM JANUARY 9, 2026 AND ONGOING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND NOT IN ERROR

  The WCAB found that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on the credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony, rejecting the stale opinions of AMEs Dr. Levy and Dr. Woodcox regarding permanent and stationary status. The delay in payment was not unreasonable due to genuine medical doubt, so the 25% penalty under section 5814 was rescinded, but a 10% increase on delayed payments was awarded under section 4650(d). Attorney fees under section 5813 were rescinded and replaced with a 15% fee on delayed payments.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ16581671 · 2026-08-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeTemporary disabilitydefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.9that an orthopedist should evaluate applicant’s knees with the possible need for surgery. This would indicate that applicant is not at maximum medical improvement at either the time of the report or at the time of the PTP report. Further, though the psyche QME did not conclude that applicant was temporary totally disabled, she also did not find him at MMI. The psyche treater did opine that applicant was temporarily disabled at least through September 2024. Finally, the issue of injury in the form of the venous condition is deferred. Until there is a finding as to the compensability of that condition, the end date for temporary disability is not supported. As such, we will rescind the finding of the period of temporary disability so that the WCJ can make a finding of maximum medical improvement and develop the record for the venous condition.

  The WCAB rescinded the temporary disability period awarded by the WCJ due to lack of MMI finding and deferred the issue pending further development of the venous condition record.

  Official decision · page 9 →
• ADJ20546432 · 2026-08-07 · Marina del Rey District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5First, Defendant contends that Applicant is not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after Applicant retired having submitted his paperwork for retirement in February of 2025 with apparently an effective retirement date of March 25, 2025. Defendant correctly references the controlling case regarding entitlement to temporary total disability after retirement which is Gonzalez v. WCAB (1998) 63 CCC 1477, which provides that to determine whether an employee is entitled to temporary total disability following retirement, the employer must assess whether the employee is retired from the labor market in total or just from the occupation held at the time of the injury and whether the decision to retire was truly voluntary or was the decision to retire related to the industrial injury. Applicant credibly testified that he did not want to retire at the time he did and only did so because he was physically unable to work. Defendant failed to present any testimony or evidence that the

  Applicant credibly testified that retirement was not voluntary but due to physical inability to work, and no evidence contradicted this; thus, Applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits after retirement.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ20337002 · 2026-07-21 · Sacramento District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order (FA&O) issued on May 18, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the FA&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that on December 19, 2024, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment to the low back, right hand and left hand; applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 19, 2024, through September 14, 2025; and that applicant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after September 15, 2025. Applicant alleges that the WCJ found applicant’s testimony credible and defendant employer did not establish that modified duty was actually offered to applicant. She contends that the WCJ relied on an incorrect premise that she failed to adequately respond to employer communications, and that defendant did not meet its burden to show job abandonment or termination for cause so that she is entitled to temporary disability benefits after September 15, 2025. We received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

  The Appeals Board found that defendant did not meet its burden to prove a bona fide offer of modified work and that applicant was not terminated for cause unrelated to the industrial injury; therefore, applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 19, 2024 to January 6, 2026, with the issue of benefits thereafter deferred.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• 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 →
• 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 →