ADJ17343281 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration granted; First Amended Findings and Award rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings.

Defendant sought reconsideration of the First Amended Findings and Award issued January 14, 2025, which the WCJ had issued. The WCJ recommended denial of the petition, but the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the F&A, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Read the official 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.

Temporary disabilityRemandedbilateral feet · bilateral ankles · low back

The WCJ issued an award on temporary disability and attorney's fees without findings of fact on these issues and precluded defendant from pursuing a credit for reimbursements to EDD, which was not raised for trial. The Appeals Board found the record incomplete and returned the matter for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 6Although applicant and defendant framed the issues of temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees for trial, the WCJ issued no findings of fact as to these issues. Instead, the WCJ awarded applicant temporary disability indemnity in a manner which determined an issue neither raised nor submitted for decision: whether defendant may take a credit for any reimbursement payments it may have made to EDD.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

WCJ issued an award on temporary disability and attorney's fees without findings of fact on these issues and precluded defendant from pursuing a credit for reimbursements to EDD, which was not raised for trial.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This procedural deficiency led the Appeals Board to rescind the award and remand for further proceedings to ensure due process and a complete record.

From the decision · page 6Although applicant and defendant framed the issues of temporary disability indemnity and attorney's fees for trial, the WCJ issued no findings of fact as to these issues. Instead, the WCJ awarded applicant temporary disability indemnity in a manner which determined an issue neither raised nor submitted for decision: whether defendant may take a credit for any reimbursement payments it may have made to EDD.

Inconsistencies in Dr. Jindal's medical reports undermined the basis for terminating temporary disability benefits.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported the finding that the applicant was not at permanent and stationary status and remained temporarily disabled, justifying remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 3In this case, Applicant was similarly prejudiced by not receiving full TD benefits for an extended period of time. The inconsistencies in Dr. Jindal's reports upon which the termination of TD benefits was based were clearly evident, yet Defendant failed to investigate. In his report of 5/23/2023, Dr. Jindal found that the "Applicant has permanent work restrictions", and notes restrictions of no bending at the waist and no lifting and carrying more than 15 lbs. He also indicates that surgery in the form of an MP joint surgical intervention is anticipated in the near future, (Ex. D). However, 5 days later, in his report of 5/28/2023, although he says that the Applicant's symptoms are worsening, he also says that Applicant can now bend at the waist occasionally, and the lifting and carrying restrictions have increased to no more than 20 lbs., (Ex. E). These reports when viewed together do not

ADJ17343281 · April 14, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page