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's work restrictions due to industrial injury were not accommodated by the employer, and defendant did not meet its burden to show modified work was available; applicant is entitled to TD for March 20, 2020, to July 1, 2020. The period February 1, 2020, to March 19, 2020, is deferred for further development of the record.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's work restrictions due to right wrist injury were not accommodated by employer, who required lifting 50 lbs and said restrictions were too vague.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Showed applicant could not return to work and was entitled to TD.
From the decision · page 3Her last day at work at Manteca was 10/28/2020. She had surgery 10/29/ 2020, of the right wrist; this was an injury at UPS in July 2019.... Manteca Unified had no modified duty.... No offer of modified duty up until July 1st. The district required lifting 50 pounds, that was Manteca Unified's job requirement. ... She was not told that there will be no pay due to her restrictions. She [did not have] on-call status due to the restrictions, because Darla Sanborn (phonetic) said they were too vague. If applicant was on-call, she would have been working. On July 1, 2020, she did not return to work, there was no school in session. ... Darla Sanborn indicated that if she's not on full duty, she gets no pay. The employer said that the applicant's restrictions were too vague. Applicant tried to get the restrictions clarified by her doctors, and the employer kept indicating they were too vague. (MOH/SOE, pp. 4 - 5.)