SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ13972865 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ13972865 · July 25, 2022

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 1
District office: Riverside

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel.

Read the official decision →

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.

Temporary disabilityApplicant prevailed

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found the refusal of modified work offers unreasonable, which would justify denying TTD benefits, but the offers were withdrawn, making the issue moot.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return-to-work process so that applicant could claim TTD, and that the offers should be treated as though they were not withdrawn.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.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

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.