What the panel ordered
Nunc Pro Tunc order vacated; Findings and Award affirmed except amended to defer issues of permanent and stationary date, permanent disability, apportionment, and Labor Code section 5814 penalties; order for second panel evaluation in ophthalmology; all other issues affirmed.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings and Award dated October 17, 2023. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues, reviewed the petition, answer, and WCJ's report, and now issues its decision after reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 2, 2024.
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 issue of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 was not raised at trial and remains undecided. Jurisdiction is reserved and the issue is deferred for future proceedings.
From the decision · page 58. The issue of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 is deferred.
Permanent disability must be determined before apportionment can be decided. The record needs further development on permanent disability, so apportionment is also deferred.
From the decision · page 5headaches. However, permanent disability must be determined first before it can be apportioned. Therefore, the issue of apportionment must also be deferred.
The record must be more fully developed before determining whether applicant was entitled to further temporary disability indemnity benefits after June 10, 2022. If additional evidence is needed to determine entitlement to temporary disability, applicant could not have reached permanent and stationary status. Thus, the issue of the P&S date must be deferred.
From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ found that the record must be more fully developed before determining whether applicant was entitled to further temporary disability indemnity benefits after June 10, 2022. Yet, the WCJ also found that the permanent and stationary (P&S) date was June 10, 2022. However, an applicant would only receive temporary disability if they had not become P&S. Therefore, if additional evidence is needed to determine whether applicant was due additional temporary disability, then she could not have reached P&S status. Thus, the issue of the P&S date must be deferred.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Permanent disability must be determined before apportionment can be decided.
Favours neutral
Because the record needs further development on permanent disability, apportionment is also deferred.
From the decision · page 5headaches. However, permanent disability must be determined first before it can be apportioned. Therefore, the issue of apportionment must also be deferred.
The issue of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 was not raised at trial and remains undecided.
Favours neutral
Jurisdiction is reserved and the issue is deferred for future proceedings.
From the decision · page 58. The issue of penalties under Labor Code section 5814 is deferred.
The record requires further development to determine whether applicant was entitled to further temporary disability after June 10, 2022.
Favours neutral
If additional evidence is needed to determine entitlement to temporary disability, applicant could not have reached permanent and stationary status, so the P&S date must be deferred.
From the decision · page 4Here, the WCJ found that the record must be more fully developed before determining whether applicant was entitled to further temporary disability indemnity benefits after June 10, 2022. Yet, the WCJ also found that the permanent and stationary (P&S) date was June 10, 2022. However, an applicant would only receive temporary disability if they had not become P&S. Therefore, if additional evidence is needed to determine whether applicant was due additional temporary disability, then she could not have reached P&S status. Thus, the issue of the P&S date must be deferred.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961
Jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after the timely filing of a petition for reconsideration; WCJ may prepare a report, rescind the order, or issue an amended order.
The Nunc Pro Tunc order was vacated as the proper procedure was not followed under Rule 10961.
From the decision · page 2I. As an initial matter, we will vacate the Nunc Pro Tunc order as it was improper. The appropriate procedure for a WCJ to correct a previous findings, award, and/or order is to follow WCAB Rule 10961. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961.) WCAB Rule 10961 provides that jurisdiction remains with the district office for 15 days after the timely filing of a petition for reconsideration and sets forth the following actions that a WCJ may take in response: (1) The WCJ may prepare a report and transfer jurisdiction to the Appeals Board to address the merits of the petition (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961(a); see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10962); (2) The WCJ may rescind the entire order, decision or award and initiate proceedings within 30 days (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10961(b)); or (3) The WCJ may rescind the order, decision or award and issue an
Lab. Code, §§ 4650-4657; Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856
Temporary disability indemnity is payable during the healing period until the worker returns to work or reaches permanent and stationary status.
Applicant would only receive temporary disability if not permanent and stationary; thus, if further evidence is needed, P&S status cannot be found yet.
From the decision · page 4injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston, supra, 95 Cal.App.3d at p. 806, emphasis added.) "'Permanent and stationary status' is the point when the employee has reached maximal medical improvement, meaning his or her condition is well stabilized, and unlikely to change substantially in the next year with or without medical treatment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785 (a)(8); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9811(k).)
Labor Code section 4663
Apportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation; permanent disability must be determined before apportionment.
Apportionment cannot be determined prior to a finding of permanent disability; thus, both issues are deferred.
From the decision · page 4Similarly, apportionment cannot be determined prior to a finding of permanent disability. Labor Code section 4663 provides that "[a]pportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation." (Lab. Code, § 4663(a).) A doctor who prepares a report addressing the issue of permanent disability due to a claimed industrial injury must address the issue of causation of the permanent disability. (Lab. Code, § 4663(b).) Labor Code section 4663 requires that the doctor "make an apportionment determination by finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by other factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, including prior industrial injuries." (Lab. Code, § 4663(c); see also Nunes v.
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.