What the panel ordered
Petition for reconsideration denied.
Petition for reconsideration of WCJ's First Amended Findings and Award of February 27, 2026, denied by the WCAB panel on May 18, 2026.
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.
Applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212 and did not show good cause to set aside the stipulation, so the stipulated occupational group was upheld for the permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.
The medical evidence showed applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024, and no contrary substantial evidence was presented to extend temporary disability beyond that date.
From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 according to Dr. Nyquist and no contrary substantial evidence was presented.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported the denial of temporary disability beyond that date.
From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary
Applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212 and did not show good cause to set aside the stipulation.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported upholding the permanent disability rating based on the stipulated occupational group.
From the decision · page 5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.
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.
Returned applicant to full duty on January 30, 2024, but expressed reservations about the cause of persistent pain and the conclusion of maximum medical improvement by the surgeon.
Her repeated statements that applicant could return to full duty on January 30, 2024 were relied upon to deny temporary disability beyond that date.
From the decision · page 3Applicant subsequently came under the care of primary treating physician Julia Nyquist, M.D. In a report of January 30, 2024, Dr. Nyquist returned applicant to full duty, writing in her report:
Opined applicant reached maximum medical improvement as of July 12, 2025 and that all temporary disability periods were appropriate.
His opinion supported the conclusion that temporary disability ended on January 30, 2024, with no contrary evidence presented.
From the decision · page 4M.D., who opined that applicant had attained maximal medical improvement "as of the date of this evaluation" (July 12, 2025) and that "all periods of temporary disability noted within the medical records... were appropriate and commensurate with the applicant's injuries." August 3, 2025 report at p. 9.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419]
A stipulation is binding unless contrary to law or policy and may be disregarded only for good cause.
Applied to uphold the stipulated occupational group for permanent disability rating.
From the decision · page 5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.
Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798]
Temporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period until recovery or permanent and stationary status.
Applied to determine the end of temporary disability benefits based on return to work and MMI.
From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024.
From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary
The QME did not offer any contrary opinion to extend temporary disability beyond January 30, 2024.
From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary
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.