What the panel ordered
The Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.
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 unrebutted QME report of Dr. Balian indicated a period of temporary partial disability, and the employer did not provide substantial evidence of a bona fide offer of alternative/modified duty during that period, supporting the award of temporary disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The unrebutted QME report of Dr. Balian indicated a period of temporary partial disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the award of temporary disability indemnity to the applicant.
From the decision · page 3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.
The employer did not provide substantial evidence of a bona fide offer of alternative or modified duty during the period of temporary disability.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure supported the court's finding that temporary disability indemnity was due.
From the decision · page 5Petitioner's assertion that the evidence did not support the Court's Findings and Award are unfounded and lack any legal or factual support. Cal. Labor Code § 3202.5 states that "All parties... shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence." The only medical evidence offered at trial was that of the QME, indicating a period of temporary disability for this admitted claim. The issue at Expedited Trial was temporary disability. In reviewing the treating physician's reports, the QME found an additional period of temporary partial disability that exceeded the original MMI date. Petitioner provided no substantial evidence upon which the Court could rely showing that alternative or modified duty was available for this period of temporary disability, or, substantial rebuttal evidence in support of its position that no temporary disability is due.
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.
Indicated a period of temporary partial disability exceeding the original MMI date.
The QME report was unrebutted and supported the award of temporary disability indemnity.
From the decision · page 3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Labor Code
Labor Code §5502 - Expedited hearing and determination within 30 days after declaration of readiness
The court proceeded with the expedited hearing and determination despite petitioner's argument that the hearing should not have gone forward.
From the decision · page 4Labor Code § 5502 (b) states in pertinent part, "[t]he administrative director shall establish a priority calendar for issues requiring an expedited hearing and decision. A hearing shall be held and a determination as to the rights of the parties shall be made and filed within 30 days after the declaration of readiness to proceed is filed..." Subsection (4) indicates the reasons for proceeding to expedited hearing include disputes over the employee's entitlement to, or the amount of, temporary disability indemnity payments.
California Labor Code
Labor Code §3202.5 - Burden of proof by preponderance of evidence
The petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the QME report indicating temporary disability.
From the decision · page 5Petitioner's assertion that the evidence did not support the Court's Findings and Award are unfounded and lack any legal or factual support. Cal. Labor Code § 3202.5 states that "All parties... shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence." The only medical evidence offered at trial was that of the QME, indicating a period of temporary disability for this admitted claim. The issue at Expedited Trial was temporary disability. In reviewing the treating physician's reports, the QME found an additional period of temporary partial disability that exceeded the original MMI date. Petitioner provided no substantial evidence upon which the Court could rely showing that alternative or modified duty was available for this period of temporary disability, or, substantial rebuttal evidence in support of its position that no temporary disability is due.
California Labor Code
Labor Code §4650 - Late payment penalties
The court applied Labor Code §4650 to late payment of indemnity due.
From the decision · page 5Where indemnity is due, but remains unpaid, Labor Code § 4650 applies to all late payment. Petitioner has not cited any case law or statute that implies otherwise in this case.
California Labor Code
Labor Code §5814 - Interest on unpaid indemnity
The court rejected petitioner's argument that interest does not accrue on unpaid indemnity.
From the decision · page 5Petitioner correctly cites Labor Code § 5800, but fails to provide any legal justification, in statute or case law, to support its position that interest does not accrue on indemnity left unpaid for an accepted claim.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Unrebutted QME report indicating temporary partial disability
From the decision · page 3LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC., insured by STATE NAT'L INS. CO, administered by CANNON COCHRAN, hereinafter "Petitioner", through its legal representative, filed a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration to the November 5, 2021, Findings and Award granting retroactive temporary disability benefits to the applicant based on the unrebutted report of Dr. Balian.
No substantial evidence from employer of bona fide offer of alternative/modified duty
From the decision · page 5Petitioner's assertion that the evidence did not support the Court's Findings and Award are unfounded and lack any legal or factual support. Cal. Labor Code § 3202.5 states that "All parties... shall meet the evidentiary burden of proof on all issues by a preponderance of the evidence." The only medical evidence offered at trial was that of the QME, indicating a period of temporary disability for this admitted claim. The issue at Expedited Trial was temporary disability. In reviewing the treating physician's reports, the QME found an additional period of temporary partial disability that exceeded the original MMI date. Petitioner provided no substantial evidence upon which the Court could rely showing that alternative or modified duty was available for this period of temporary disability, or, substantial rebuttal evidence in support of its position that no temporary disability is due.
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.