What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel.
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 found the refusal of modified work offers unreasonable, which would justify denying TTD benefits, but the offers were withdrawn, making the issue moot. The WCAB agreed no wrongful interference by applicant's attorney occurred and allowed TTD benefits despite refusal.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that it provided applicant, with two valid modified work offers with several nonprofit organizations in accordance with Rule 10116.9 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10116.9), and that applicant's refusal of the offers constituted grounds to deny him temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. Defendant also asserts that applicant's attorney "intentionally interfered" with the return-to-work process so that applicant could claim TTD, and that the offers should be treated as though they were not withdrawn.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The nonprofits withdrew their modified work offers, making the refusal moot.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This withdrawal meant the refusal to accept work offers could not justify denial of TTD benefits.
From the decision · page 1Upon review, we conclude that the WCJ properly found that applicant's refusal of the modified work offers, which complied with Rule 10116.9, was on its face unreasonable, and that this would ordinarily justify denying applicant TTD benefits. However, as the WCJ noted, the issue became moot after the nonprofits withdrew their offers. We also agree with the WCJ that the nonprofits did not withdraw their offers as a result of any wrongful interference by applicant's attorney. Instead, as explained below, the evidence shows that, in communicating with each nonprofit, applicant's attorney was simply exercising due diligence on behalf of his client, rather than attempting to cause the nonprofits to renege.
Applicant's attorney's communications with nonprofits were proper and not wrongful interference.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This showed no undue influence or wrongful interference that would affect the work offers' validity.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's attorney's contact with the other nonprofit, Habitat for Humanity, was equally benign. In an email dated March 23, 2022, which was provided to defense counsel roughly 24 hours later, applicant's attorney contacted the nonprofit to "inquir[e] about the status of the applicant's involvement as a `volunteer.'" (Applicant Exh. 4, p. 1; Applicant Exh. 1, p. 1.) We see nothing unethical or otherwise inappropriate about such an inquiry. The remaining evidence shows that defense counsel was included in all communications between applicant's attorney and CPC Logistics, Inc. (Quality Driver Solutions) regarding applicant's potential participation in the modified work opportunities. (Applicant Exh. 7.) Based upon the foregoing, we agree that applicant is entitled to claim TTD benefits despite his initial refusal of work offers that were subsequently withdrawn, and that there was no wrongful interference by, or undue influence by, applicant or his attorney.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10116.9
Rule 10116.9 of the California Code of Regulations, title 8
Defendant's modified work offers complied with this rule; refusal of such offers can justify denial of TTD benefits.
From the decision · page 1Defendant contends that it provided applicant, with two valid modified work offers with several nonprofit organizations in accordance with Rule 10116.9 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10116.9), and that applicant's refusal of the offers constituted grounds to deny him temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. Defendant also asserts that applicant's attorney "intentionally interfered" with the return-to-work process so that applicant could claim TTD, and that the offers should be treated as though they were not withdrawn.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's attorney's communications with nonprofits were proper and not wrongful interference.
From the decision · page 2Applicant's attorney's contact with the other nonprofit, Habitat for Humanity, was equally benign. In an email dated March 23, 2022, which was provided to defense counsel roughly 24 hours later, applicant's attorney contacted the nonprofit to "inquir[e] about the status of the applicant's involvement as a `volunteer.'" (Applicant Exh. 4, p. 1; Applicant Exh. 1, p. 1.) We see nothing unethical or otherwise inappropriate about such an inquiry. The remaining evidence shows that defense counsel was included in all communications between applicant's attorney and CPC Logistics, Inc. (Quality Driver Solutions) regarding applicant's potential participation in the modified work opportunities. (Applicant Exh. 7.) Based upon the foregoing, we agree that applicant is entitled to claim TTD benefits despite his initial refusal of work offers that were subsequently withdrawn, and that there was no wrongful interference by, or undue influence by, applicant or his attorney.
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.