What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the March 12, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order issued on March 12, 2025, by the WCJ, which found the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to determine entitlement to advance disability pension payments (ADPP). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
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 Appeals Board has jurisdiction to award ADPP as it constitutes compensation under Division 4 of the Labor Code, consistent with Gage. The issue of entitlement to ADPP must be decided at the trial level.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Order" (F&O) issued on March 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to determine an applicant's entitlement to advance disability pension payments ("ADPP") under Labor Code1 section 4850.4.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over compensation issues under Labor Code Division 4, including ADPP.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This jurisdictional authority allows the Board to hear and decide the issue of entitlement to ADPP.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Order" (F&O) issued on March 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to determine an applicant's entitlement to advance disability pension payments ("ADPP") under Labor Code1 section 4850.4.
The issue of whether applicant qualifies for ADPP must be decided at the trial level.
Favours neutral
The Appeals Board remanded the matter for further proceedings to ensure due process and proper development of the record.
From the decision · page 8The WCJ limited the decision in this matter to the question of jurisdiction. No decision issued as to whether applicant qualifies for ADPP. Furthermore, defendant argues that applicant should be precluded from receipt of ADPP due to his alleged failure to cooperate pursuant to section 4850.4(d)(2). We do not decide whether payment of ADPP is appropriate at this time. To preserve all parties right to due process that issue must be considered at the trial level in the first instance. (See Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 473 (Appeals Board en banc); see also Gangwish v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 1284, 1295 [108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 584].)
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.
Diagnosed cumulative trauma injury to spine with low back pain, radiculopathy, and disc degeneration; assigned 18% WPI in 2022 and updated to 28% WPI with 3% pain add-on and 36% WPI after Guzman analysis in 2024; recommended future medical treatment; found unable to perform police officer duties.
From the decision · page 2Joint Exhibit 1 is reports of QME Christian Foglar, M.D., dated 09/13/2024, and 06/01/2022. In his 06/01/2022 report, Dr. Foglar found that applicant had sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his spine. He diagnosed him with low back pain, lumbar region radiculopathy, and lumbosacral intervertebral disc degeneration. He
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Gage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1128
The Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any issue regarding recovery of compensation under Labor Code Division 4, including advance disability pension payments under section 4850.4, as established in Gage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016).
The Appeals Board has jurisdiction to award ADPP as it constitutes compensation under Division 4 of the Labor Code.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the "Findings of Fact and Order" (F&O) issued on March 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to determine an applicant's entitlement to advance disability pension payments ("ADPP") under Labor Code1 section 4850.4.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant received Labor Code section 4850 benefits at full salary and permanent disability advances; defendant accepted liability for industrial injury; applicant's application for industrial disability retirement was denied and is pending appeal; applicant was placed on paid administrative leave after arrest; defendant alleges applicant failed to cooperate in providing medical information as required by Labor Code section 4850(d).
From the decision · page 2The following is undisputed. Defendant accepted liability for applicant's claim of industrial injury to his low back. Applicant received Labor code section 4850 benefits at his full salary on 03/19/2021. Applicant returned to modified duty on 10/15/2021, and worked modified duty until 06/27/2022, at which time he received 4850 benefits again. Defendant paid permanent disability advances from 11/27/2022 through the present. On 12/12/2022, applicant was arrested for alleged domestic violence. On 12/13/2022, applicant was placed on paid administrative leave. On 01/30/2023, applicant filed an application for industrial disability retirement (IDR) with CalPERS. The last payment of any 4850 benefits, wages, or sick leave was paid on 12/24/2023. CalPERS denied applicant's IDR application. Applicant appealed that denial, which is still pending. A Skelly hearing appealing the employer's recommendation to terminate applicant's employment, the final decision of which is pending, occurred on 11/12/2024.
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.