What the panel ordered
The Board reversed the WCJ's determination that the applicant's spinal surgeries constitute an amputation and are entitled to temporary disability indemnity beyond the two-year/104-week cap, amending the Findings and Award accordingly and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings on remaining issues.
The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow time to study the record and applicable law, and assigned the case for an en banc decision due to the important legal issue regarding the scope of the amputation exception to the two-year/104-week cap on temporary disability indemnity in Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C).
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 Board held that the term 'amputations' means severance or removal of a limb, part of a limb, or other body appendage, including both traumatic loss and surgical removal during treatment, but the applicant's spinal surgeries do not constitute an amputation under this definition, so the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability indemnity beyond the cap.
From the decision · page 21 For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the word "amputations," as used in section
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant underwent spinal surgeries including anterior L5-S1 diskectomy, partial L5-S1 vertebrectomy, and L5-S1 fusion with bone graft from the left iliac crest.
Favours neutral
These surgeries were considered by the Board to determine if they constitute an amputation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C).
From the decision · page 2underwent back surgery on January 9 and 10, 2006. The procedures included anterior L5-S1 11
The WCJ found that the surgeries constituted an amputation entitling the applicant to temporary disability indemnity beyond the two-year/104-week cap.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This finding was reversed by the Board, which held the surgeries do not meet the definition of amputation.
From the decision · page 37 compensation administrative law judge ("WCJ") issued her Findings and Award on April 4, 2007,
The Board held that the term 'amputations' excludes surgical removal of internal, non-projecting body parts such as the applicant's spinal surgeries.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This interpretation led to the reversal of the WCJ's award of additional temporary disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 815 Because we interpret the language according to its commonsense and ordinary meaning, we will
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C)
The term 'amputations' in Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C) means the severance or removal of a limb, part of a limb, or other body appendage, including both traumatic loss and surgical removal during treatment of an industrial injury.
Interpreted the term 'amputations' to include traumatic and surgical removal but excluded the applicant's spinal surgeries as amputations.
From the decision · page 21 For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the word "amputations," as used in section
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.