What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel after review of the WCJ report and record.
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 WCJ's finding that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from May 22, 2020, to the present and continuing is supported by credible testimony, medical evidence, and legal precedent, including the failure of the defendant to offer modified work when the applicant was released to modified duty.
From the decision · page 34. Petitioner contends that the WCJ erred in: a) Finding that the applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period of May 22, 2020, through the present: and b) Finding that the applicant was entitled to continuing temporary total disability benefits.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant stopped working at Wood Ranch due to unbearable shoulder pain from hours worked, not voluntary resignation.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports finding that applicant did not refuse modified work and is entitled to temporary total disability benefits.
From the decision · page 3After her injury, the applicant continued to work for the defendant with modified duties. The applicant continued to work for the defendant until December 30, 2019.2 The applicant stopped working at Wood Ranch because her shoulder pain became unbearable due to the number of hours she was working.3
Applicant underwent left shoulder arthroscopy surgery on May 22, 2020, and was declared temporarily totally disabled by Dr. James Fait.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Medical evidence supporting entitlement to temporary total disability benefits from surgery date onward.
From the decision · page 4The applicant underwent arthroscopy surgery on her left shoulder on May 22, 2020, and was stated to be temporarily totally disabled by her surgeon and primary treating physician, Dr. James Fait.5
Defendant failed to offer modified work when applicant was released to modified duty on July 10, 2020.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Employer's failure to offer modified work obligates payment of temporary total disability benefits.
From the decision · page 5As the applicant had not removed herself from the labor market, the defendant was obligated to offer modified work to the applicant when she was released to modified duties on July 10, 2020. Having failed to do so defendant is liable for temporary total disability benefits for this period.
No evidence defendant offered work within restrictions or misconduct by applicant.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports continuing entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.
From the decision · page 6No evidence was submitted that showed misconduct on the part of the applicant, and no evidence was presented that showed that the defendant offered work within the applicant's work restrictions to the applicant.
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.
Declared the applicant temporarily totally disabled after left shoulder arthroscopy surgery on May 22, 2020, released to modified duty on July 10, 2020 with restriction of no overhead work, then declared temporarily totally disabled again on August 28, 2020, and continued to find the applicant temporarily totally disabled through February 19, 2021.
The WCJ relied on Dr. Fait's medical reports to find the applicant temporarily totally disabled and entitled to benefits.
From the decision · page 4The applicant underwent arthroscopy surgery on her left shoulder on May 22, 2020, and was stated to be temporarily totally disabled by her surgeon and primary treating physician, Dr. James Fait.5
Evaluated the applicant in April 2020, acknowledged applicant was working regular duty, stated condition had not reached maximum medical improvement, and recommended left shoulder arthroscopy decompression and distal clavicle resection.
The WCJ found Dr. Ghazal's report consistent with the applicant's testimony and supporting the finding that the applicant had not removed herself from the labor market and was entitled to benefits.
From the decision · page 5As noted by the defendant, the applicant was evaluated by Dr. Ronny G Ghazal, MD, as the Panel Qualified Medical Examiner in April 2020.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal. Comp. Cases 389
An employer's inability to accommodate work restrictions does not release it from paying temporary disability benefits.
Applied to support continuing temporary total disability benefits despite employer's inability to offer work.
From the decision · page 6The appeals board further stated that an employer's inability to accommodate a temporarily disabled employee's work restrictions does not release it from its obligation to pay temporary disability benefits.13
Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319
An injured worker's resignation due to injury cannot be considered a refusal of modified work and does not bar temporary disability benefits.
Applied to reject defendant's claim that applicant voluntarily quit and was not entitled to benefits.
From the decision · page 4Contrary to the defendant's assertion, "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 is not offered'.9
Corona v. California Walls, Inc dba Crown Industrial Operators (2020) 85 Cal. Comp. Cases 1043
Employer's inability to offer modified duties due to COVID-19 orders does not relieve obligation to pay temporary disability benefits.
Applied to reject defendant's claim that layoff due to COVID-19 pandemic negated benefits entitlement.
From the decision · page 6The appeals board has provided that the fact that it is impossible for a defendant to offer modified duties to an applicant because of the COVID-19 orders is inconsequential.12
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determination of the applicant's testimony
From the decision · page 5The undersigned judge found the applicant credible. The applicant testified that she stopped working at Wood Ranch because her shoulder pain became unbearable due to the number of hours she was working.10
No evidence defendant offered work within restrictions or misconduct by applicant
From the decision · page 6No evidence was submitted that showed misconduct on the part of the applicant, and no evidence was presented that showed that the defendant offered work within the applicant's work restrictions to the applicant.
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.