What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration granted; November 12, 2025 Findings and Award rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the November 12, 2025 Findings and Award issued by the WCJ, which found applicant entitled to temporary disability benefits. The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the F&A, and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the record.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 record lacked sufficient evidence regarding the seasonal employment status and off season earnings, requiring further development of the record to determine entitlement to temporary disability benefits off season.
From the decision · page 6Turning now to the merits of the Petition, defendant contends that based upon the current record, including applicant's October 8, 2025 testimony regarding seasonal employment with defendant and lack of evidence of off season earnings, applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits for the off season. (Petition, pp. 3-5.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Neither party provided evidence on applicant's intended position, duration of employment, or basis for season end date.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The lack of evidence prevented a substantial evidence basis for the WCJ's decision, necessitating further record development.
From the decision · page 6Based upon our review of the record, we find insufficient evidence to either support or oppose the WCJ's November 12, 2025 F&A. Although applicant testified that he "always worked a seasonal job" and received no off season earnings (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), p. 4.), neither applicant nor the employer provided testimony regarding why applicant was hired (i.e. applicant's intended position), the duration of time for which applicant was to work for defendant, and whether applicant could have continued work beyond the season's end but for the subject injury. Lastly, although defendant alleges that a letter dated June 18, 2025 was sent to applicant regarding the season ending on June 15, 2025, applicant alleges that said letter was not received and no further evidence was provided confirming the season's end and the basis for said ending. Considering the foregoing, further development of the record is necessary.
Applicant testified he always worked a seasonal job and had no off season earnings.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This testimony was central to the dispute over entitlement to temporary disability benefits off season.
From the decision · page 2Thereafter, the matter proceeded to an Expedited Hearing on October 8, 2025. At the Expedited Hearing, applicant testified that "he always worked a seasonal job[,]" "does not receive any off season earnings[,]" and confirmed that he worked for defendant from April 7, 2025, until his injury on May 1, 2025 and that his off season was from December 15, 2024 through April 6, 2025 for the year prior to the subject injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), p. 4.) Applicant also testified that he did not receive the letter from defendant dated June 18, 2025 regarding the season ending on June 15, 2025. (Ibid.) Neither applicant nor defendant provided testimony regarding what position applicant was hired to work, the intended duration of applicant's employment, and the basis for the alleged season end date.
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.
Provided a report dated July 1, 2025, submitted as trial exhibit.
From the decision · page 2Applicant submitted as trial exhibits, the July 1, 2025 report of Irene Sanchez Esparza, M.D., a September 22, 2025 work status report, and a temporary disability notice dated May 22, 2025. Defendant submitted as exhibits, a denial notice dated June 18, 2025, a notice regarding indemnity payment changes dated June 18, 2025, a further denial notice dated August 1, 2025, a letter to applicant's attorney dated June 17, 2025, and wage statements. Thereafter, the matter stood submitted.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of filing, unless delayed by irregularities outside petitioner's control.
The Board granted reconsideration due to procedural irregularities affecting timely action on the petition.
From the decision · page 3Preliminarily, Labor Code1 section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acts on the petition within sixty (60) days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104
Due process requires that a party not be deprived of a substantial right without notice, including the right to reconsideration.
The Board applied Shipley to toll the reconsideration period due to administrative errors, ensuring due process.
From the decision · page 3However, pursuant to the case of Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1108 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493], "it is a fundamental principle of due process that a party may not be deprived of a substantial right without notice[.]" (See also Rea v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 625, 635 fn. 22 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 312] ["irregularity which deprives reconsideration under the statutory scheme denies due process"].)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's October 8, 2025 testimony that he always worked a seasonal job and did not receive off season earnings.
From the decision · page 2Thereafter, the matter proceeded to an Expedited Hearing on October 8, 2025. At the Expedited Hearing, applicant testified that "he always worked a seasonal job[,]" "does not receive any off season earnings[,]" and confirmed that he worked for defendant from April 7, 2025, until his injury on May 1, 2025 and that his off season was from December 15, 2024 through April 6, 2025 for the year prior to the subject injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), p. 4.) Applicant also testified that he did not receive the letter from defendant dated June 18, 2025 regarding the season ending on June 15, 2025. (Ibid.) Neither applicant nor defendant provided testimony regarding what position applicant was hired to work, the intended duration of applicant's employment, and the basis for the alleged season end date.
Lack of evidence from defendant regarding applicant's position, intended duration of employment, and basis for season end date.
From the decision · page 2Thereafter, the matter proceeded to an Expedited Hearing on October 8, 2025. At the Expedited Hearing, applicant testified that "he always worked a seasonal job[,]" "does not receive any off season earnings[,]" and confirmed that he worked for defendant from April 7, 2025, until his injury on May 1, 2025 and that his off season was from December 15, 2024 through April 6, 2025 for the year prior to the subject injury. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE), p. 4.) Applicant also testified that he did not receive the letter from defendant dated June 18, 2025 regarding the season ending on June 15, 2025. (Ibid.) Neither applicant nor defendant provided testimony regarding what position applicant was hired to work, the intended duration of applicant's employment, and the basis for the alleged season end date.
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.