ADJ10863870 · August 6, 2025

Dr. Centeno's permanent and stationary date was conclusory and not supported by subsequent medical improvement; Dr. Ryan's date of March 28, 2019 was relied upon as the correct permanent and stationary date.

From the decision · page 6conclusions. [Citation.]" Dr. Centeno's opinion regarding applicant's permanent and stationary date did not constitute substantial evidence because it was conclusory and because, in light of applicant's subsequent improvement, it was based on facts no longer germane. We therefore amend the WCJ's decision to reflect that applicant was not permanent and stationary until March 28, 2019 and defer the issue of any temporary disability after July 17, 2017.3

The issue of additional temporary disability after July 17, 2017 was deferred for further determination.

From the decision · page 68. The issue of any additional temporary disability after July 17, 2017 is deferred, with jurisdiction reserved.

Applicant's condition continued to improve beyond July 18, 2017

Favours Applicant prevailed

This showed that the initial permanent and stationary date was premature and not supported by substantial evidence.

From the decision · page 5In this case, applicant's condition continued to improve beyond the date that Dr. Centeno opined applicant was permanent and stationary. Therefore, contrary to Dr. Centeno's report, applicant had not yet reached maximal medical improvement on July 18, 2017. Although the WCJ states in the Report that Dr. Ryan acquiesced in Dr. Centeno's permanent and stationary date, we interpret Dr. Ryan's deposition testimony differently. Our reading of Dr. Ryan's deposition testimony is while she believed that Dr. Centeno's opinion that applicant was permanent and stationary was reasonable at the time of Dr. Centeno's report, subsequent events showed that applicant was not, in fact, permanent and stationary. Dr. Ryan never changes her opinion in her testimony.

Concluded applicant reached permanent and stationary status on July 18, 2017 but did not explain reasoning beyond a conclusory statement.

Opinion was conclusory and not supported by subsequent medical improvement.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was under the care of primary treating physician orthopedist Joseph Centeno, M.D. In a progress report dated June 20, 2017, Dr. Centeno wrote, "I believe his [sic] has reached [maximal medical improvement] and would benefit from a [permanent and stationary] exam." Dr. Centeno issued a Permanent and Stationary report (PR-4) on July 18, 2017. However, other than the conclusory sentence in the June 20, 2017 report and titling the July 18, 2017 report a Permanent and Stationary Report and listing a permanent impairment rating, Dr. Centeno did not explain why applicant had reached permanent and stationary status.

Found applicant was permanent and stationary as of March 28, 2019, based on examination after physical therapy and subsequent improvement.

Relied upon as the correct permanent and stationary date due to detailed examination and reasoning.

From the decision · page 2Applicant was then evaluated by qualified medical evaluator Dr. Ryan. In a Report of March 28, 2019, Dr. Ryan wrote, "If he does not want right shoulder replacement because of the risks then he will be permanent and stationary." (March 28, 2019 report at p. 47.) Dr. Ryan went on to state:

General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jackson) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 331, 339; Bstandig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 988, 995-996; Administrative Director Rule 10152, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10152

An injured worker becomes permanent and stationary when no further medical treatment is indicated or the possibility of improvement is remote; maximal medical improvement means condition is well stabilized and unlikely to change substantially in the next year.

Applied to determine the correct permanent and stationary date based on medical evidence and improvement.

From the decision · page 5treatment is indicated, or when the possibility of improvement of the injured worker's condition, by further medical treatment, has become remote. (See General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jackson) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 331, 339 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 375]; Bstandig v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 988, 995-996 [42 Cal.Comp.Cases 114].) "A disability is considered permanent and stationary when the employee has reached maximal medical improvement, meaning his or her condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment." (Administrative Director Rule 10152, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10152.)

Applicant's subsequent improvement after July 18, 2017

From the decision · page 5In this case, applicant's condition continued to improve beyond the date that Dr. Centeno opined applicant was permanent and stationary. Therefore, contrary to Dr. Centeno's report, applicant had not yet reached maximal medical improvement on July 18, 2017. Although the WCJ states in the Report that Dr. Ryan acquiesced in Dr. Centeno's permanent and stationary date, we interpret Dr. Ryan's deposition testimony differently. Our reading of Dr. Ryan's deposition testimony is while she believed that Dr. Centeno's opinion that applicant was permanent and stationary was reasonable at the time of Dr. Centeno's report, subsequent events showed that applicant was not, in fact, permanent and stationary. Dr. Ryan never changes her opinion in her testimony.