When they must send it
• Together with the last payment of temporary disability indemnity or • Within 14 days of knowledge that the injury is permanent and stationary or has caused no permanent disability.
The deadline this notice puts on you
You must notify me in writing of your objection to the determination of the treating physician within thirty days of the date you received the treating physician’s report. To be eligible, you must have an Award for permanent partial disability, must not have received an offer of Modified or Alternate work from your employer and have not returned to work for the employer within sixty days of the termination of temporary disability benefits.
Quoted from the model notice below. Your letter should say the same — if it does not, that is worth asking about.
Rule text
California Labor Code § 4062 · 20 unspecified
Trigger: receipt of the treating physician report
(a) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney.…
California Labor Code § 4062 · 30 unspecified
Trigger: receipt of the treating physician report
(a) If either the employee or employer objects to a medical determination made by the treating physician concerning any medical issues not covered by Section 4060 or 4061 and not subject to Section 4610, the objecting party shall notify the other party in writing of the objection within 20 days of receipt of the report if the employee is represented by an attorney or within 30 days of receipt of the report if the employee is not represented by an attorney.…
Quoted from the statute, marked computed. The deadline table is a draft extraction — read the official code if the two disagree.
The rule behind it
8 CCR Title 8, CCR §9812(e)(3)
The official model notice
BENEFIT NOTICE INSTRUCTION MANUAL Claims Administrator Name Address City_State_Zip Telephone Number [include if available] Website address Date [Option] SENT VIA E-MAIL TO employee’s e- mail address Employee Employer: Address Date of Injury: City_State_Zip Claim Number: NOTICE REGARDING PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS DENIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR NAME is handling your workers' compensation claim on behalf of EMPLOYER NAME. This notice is to advise you of the status of disability benefits for your workers' compensation injury on the date shown above. On DATE you (choose one) returned to work / were released to return to work / were discharged from care. [A. Select 1 or 2] (1) Based upon the report of DATE from PHYSICIAN’S NAME, (select one) your treating physician / a Qualified Medical Evaluator / an Agreed Medical Evaluator, (2) Based on (insert non-medical or other basis for determination), you have recovered from your injury with no permanent disability. For this reason, no permanent disability payments are payable. …
Published by the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the Benefit Notice Instruction Manual. Excerpt — read the full manual at the source. p.51.
Source · dir.ca.gov →When this went wrong
Decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on this subject. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF.
- ADJ10656647 · 2026-09-14 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED, as the Decision After Reconsideration of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, that the Joint Findings of Fact, Awards, and Order issued on November 23, 2022 is RESCINDED and the following is SUBSTITUTED therefor: JOINT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all relevant times herein, applicant, born _______, was employed as a groundskeeper (Occupational Group 491) in Colma, California, by defendant HILLS OF ETERNITY/HOME OF PEACE MANAGEMENT GROUP. 2. The defendant employer was insured against compensation liability by defendant AMERICAN FAMILY HOME INSURANCE COMPANY during the calendar year 2014 and by defendant INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST during the calendar year 2015. 3. At all relevant times herein, applicant’s pre-injury earnings were sufficient to entitle him to the maximum statutory permanent partial indemnity weekly rate. 4. In WCAB Case No. ADJ10656667, on April 12, 2015, applicant sustained injury, arising out of and occurring in the course of the employment identified in Finding of Fact No. 1, to his back. 5. In WCAB Case No.
The Appeals Board found 46% permanent partial disability with no apportionment to other industrial or non-industrial causes, based on the evidence and findings of fact.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ6958667 · 2026-09-11 · Van Nuys District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8B. Defendant contends Applicant is not entitled to 51 % PD for sleep because Dr. Bertoldi did not provide an Almaraz/Guzman analysis; however, Dr. Bertoldi found Applicant's sleep impairment was caused by a pituitary dysfunction. Thus, the 45% WPI utilizing Chapter 10 of the AMA Guides was Dr. Bertoldi's straight rating, and Almaraz/Guzman does not apply. Any award, order, or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code Section 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 274, 281 [39 Cal. Comp. Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, Mcdonnell-Douglas Aircraft Company, et. al., (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 312, 317 935 Cal. Comp. Cases 16].); LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 627,635 [35 Cal. Comp. Cases 16].). In Blackledge v. Bank of America (2010) 75 CCC 613, the WCAB held that it is the physician's role to determine the injured worker's WPI under the AMA Guides and to support that
The 51% PD rating for sleep impairment was upheld because it was a straight AMA Guides rating based on hypothalamic-pituitary axis disorder, not requiring Almaraz/Guzman analysis.
Official decision · page 8 → - ADJ13514341 · 2026-09-01 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3probative force on the issues. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion … It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” (Braewood Convalescent Hosp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566], emphasis removed and citations omitted.) To constitute substantial evidence “… a medical opinion must be framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, it must not be speculative, it must be based on pertinent facts and on an adequate examination and history, and it must set forth reasoning in support of its conclusions.” (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 621 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, the physician must explain the nature of the disease and how and why it is causing disability at the time of the evaluation. (Id.) For the reasons stated by the WCJ, we are persuaded that the opinion of panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME) Rommel Hindocha, D.C., is substantial medical evidence upon which the WCJ appropriately relied to determine applicant’s level of permanent disability by adding his impairments, consistent with the holding of Vigil v. County of Kern (Vigil) (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 686 [2024 Cal. Wrk. Comp.
The WCJ and Appeals Board found the opinion of QME Dr. Hindocha to be substantial medical evidence supporting a 71% permanent disability rating by adding impairments due to synergistic effects on activities of daily living (ADLs), rebutting the use of the Combined Values Chart (CVC).
Official decision · page 3 → - ADJ18016076 · 2026-08-31 · San Francisco District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.13other medical opinions, may constitute substantial evidence and the Appeals Board may rely on the medical opinion of a single physician unless it is “based on surmise, speculation, conjecture, or guess.” (Place v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 372, 378. In its petition, defendant contends, “Dr. Brewer’s cervical spine impairment rating does not satisfy the AMA Guides 5th Edition requirements for DRE Category III.” DRE Cervical Category III criteria includes: “significant signs of radiculopathy…” (Table 15-5.) Here, QME Dr. Fields Brewer opined applicant’s cervical spine WPI should be placed in DRE III because: - Applicant expresses neck pain radiating to the let upper extremity and numbness/tingling - MRI, multiple-level disc bulging - Diagnosis: cervical radiculopathy (Joint Exhibit 1, p. 12.) That analysis is unrebutted. I adopted the QME’s assigned cervical spine WPI of 17%. Defendant further contends, “Dr. Brewer’s left shoulder impairment rating is methodologically unsupported and speculative” because a left shoulder MRI had not been performed; Dr. Fields Brewer had conducted range of motion studies, however. Utilizing the ROM results, medical records review, examinations of the applicant, and utilization of AMA Guides, Dr. Fields Brewer determined that applicant’s WPI was 4%.
The QME Dr. Fields Brewer's WPI ratings for cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder, supported by medical examination and AMA Guides criteria, constitute substantial evidence for a 53% permanent disability rating.
Official decision · page 13 →