What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted solely to correct a clerical error in the Award; otherwise, the Findings, Award, and Orders issued by the WCJ on October 31, 2024, are affirmed.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings, Award, and Orders issued by the WCJ on October 31, 2024. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial of the petition. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to correct a clerical error and otherwise affirmed the WCJ's decision.
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 petition for credit for overpayment was deferred because the applicant was not given prior notice and addressing the credit claim at trial would violate due process rights.
From the decision · page 10TEMPORARY DISABILITY OVERPAYMENT CLAIM: Defendant's request for credit for temporary disability overpayment has not been denied.
The applicant sustained an amputation of part of his left index finger despite replantation surgery, which qualifies for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c). Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that the applicant is totally temporarily disabled and entitled to benefits.
From the decision · page 9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained amputation of part of left index finger despite replantation surgery.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact qualifies the applicant for the extended temporary disability benefits under Labor Code section 4656(c).
From the decision · page 9Defendant contends that applicant did not sustain an amputation hence is not eligible for the exception to the 104 week rule because the portion of the finger that was amputated was re- attached. I disagree with defendant's position.
Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supports that applicant is totally temporarily disabled.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Supports the finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 9my finding of entitlement to temporary disability benefits. Dr. Chen, the panel qualified medical examiner as well as the treating physician, Dr. Jamasbi, have stated that applicant is totally temporarily disabled, and since no modified work has been offered to date, defendant owes applicant temporary disability benefits.
Petition for credit for overpayment was deferred due to lack of prior notice to applicant.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Protects applicant's due process rights and justifies deferral of credit claim.
From the decision · page 10TEMPORARY DISABILITY OVERPAYMENT CLAIM: Defendant's request for credit for temporary disability overpayment has not been denied.
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.
Applicant is totally temporarily disabled since 9/13/22 due to restrictions on left hand use.
From the decision · page 9Dr. Chen in his report of June 27, 2024, (applicant's exhibit 2) on page 2 states that "the applicant was restricted from grasping, gripping, handling, lifting and fingering with the left hand." On page 3 the doctor states under a paragraph titled temporary total disability "Since 9/13/22, the applicant has been off work."
Applicant is totally temporarily disabled as no modified work has been offered and work restrictions prevent use of left hand.
From the decision · page 10Dr. Jamasbi, applicant's treating physician, in his report of September 9, 2024 (joint exhibit 102) on page 9 under work status states "[applicant] has the following work restrictions: "Avoid usage of left hand. The patient is not permanent and stationary. If work restrictions cannot be accommodated, then patient would be considered total temporary disability." Since modified work has not been offered to applicant, applicant is totally temporarily disabled according to his treating doctor, Dr. Jamasbi.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4656(c)
Labor Code section 4656(c) regarding temporary disability benefits and amputation exception.
The statute extends temporary disability benefits to 240 weeks for amputations.
From the decision · page 8LABOR CODE SECTION 4565(c): In relevant part, Labor Code section 4565(c) provides that, (1) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of two years from the date of commencement of temporary disability payment.
Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1281
Definition of amputation as severance or removal of a limb or part of a limb.
The Appeals Board defined amputation to include severance or removal of part of a limb, supporting the applicant's claim despite replantation.
From the decision · page 8In Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco, (2007) 72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1281, 1283 (Appeals Board en banc), the Appeals Board defined "amputation" as "the severance or removal of a limb, part of a limb, or other body appendage." (Id. at p. 1286.) Subsequent cases have relied on that definition when considering the issue of amputation and section 4565. For example, in Julie Ramirez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) Cal.Comp.Cases 1120, 1122 (writ den.), the Board stated that amputation required removal, by surgery or traumatic loss, of external projecting body parts. Further, in Burrtech Waste Industries v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Collinwood) (2010) 75 Cal.Comp.Cases 1175 (writ den.), applied when the removal of breast implants left applicant with a "chest that was essentially devoid of breasts, and whatever breasts were left were seriously diminished in size... and were grossly disfigured." (Id. at p.
Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 735
Statutory interpretation principle that clear statutory language is enforced as written.
The statute's clear language mandates extension of temporary disability for amputations regardless of replantation.
From the decision · page 9Renee J. v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 735, 743 says that when the language of a statute is clear, it is enforced according to its terms. The statute states that when a part of the body is amputated, the temporary disability period is extended.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical evidence from Dr. Chen and Dr. Jamasbi supporting total temporary disability.
From the decision · page 9my finding of entitlement to temporary disability benefits. Dr. Chen, the panel qualified medical examiner as well as the treating physician, Dr. Jamasbi, have stated that applicant is totally temporarily disabled, and since no modified work has been offered to date, defendant owes applicant temporary disability benefits.
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.