ADJ18573103 · August 17, 2026

The WCAB found that the applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on the credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony, rejecting the stale opinions of AMEs Dr. Levy and Dr. Woodcox regarding permanent and stationary status. The delay in payment was not unreasonable due to genuine medical doubt, so the 25% penalty under section 5814 was rescinded, but a 10% increase on delayed payments was awarded under section 4650(d). Attorney fees under section 5813 were rescinded and replaced with a 15% fee on delayed payments.

From the decision · page 8II. We will affirm the WCJ’s finding that applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026 going forward. Temporary disability indemnity is compensation for temporary impairment in earning ability caused by the industrial injury which is reasonably expected to be cured or materially improved with proper medical treatment or over time. (Lab. Code, §§ 4453 and 4653; see Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463, 473 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) We adopt and incorporate the WCJ’s report on this issue as follows: THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AWARD OF TTD FROM JANUARY 9, 2026 AND ONGOING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND NOT IN ERROR

Applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, based on credible opinion of PTP Dr. Kamdar and applicant's testimony.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This evidence supported the award of TTD benefits and rejection of stale AME opinions.

From the decision · page 8It is quite clear in reading the reports of PTP Dr. Kamdar, that Applicant’s umbilical hernia is visibly present and that it clearly is affecting the Applicant. This is further supported by Applicant’s own credible testimony wherein he states, “Since the fall of 2025 the hernia feels like it’s expanded. He has discomfort eating and with other activities.” There is no indication that the lifting restrictions provided by PTP Dr. Kamdar relate to anything but the hernia. Nor does it appear that Defendants made any effort to get clarity on this from PTP Dr. Kamdar.

Defendant's delay in payment after January 9, 2026, was based on AME opinions that applicant was permanent and stationary.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This justified rescinding the 25% penalty for unreasonable delay but awarding a 10% increase on delayed payments.

From the decision · page 10(Lab. Code, § 5814(a).) As we stated in our en banc opinion in Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1331 (Appeals Bd. en banc), “[S]ection 5814(a) … provides that a penalty is payable only ‘[w]hen payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused.’ (Emphasis added.) A delay or a refusal to pay is not ‘unreasonable’ if the defendant had ‘genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint as to [its] liability.’ (Kerley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 223, 230 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 152].)” While defendant did delay payment of TTD after January 9, 2026, the delay was not unreasonable as it was based on the conclusions by the AMEs in this case that applicant had become permanent and stationary. AME Dr. Woodcox stated that applicant became permanent and stationary on December 16, 2024, in his Initial Comprehensive Agreed Medical Evaluation of January 15, 2025, and confirmed that it was “more than likely” applicant reached maximum medical improvement MMI in his reevaluation report of January 8, 2026. (Jt. Ex. 101, p. 22; Jt. Ex. 102, p. 30.) AME Dr.

Found applicant was totally temporarily disabled from January 9, 2026, ongoing, with work restrictions related to hernia and feet pain.

Opinion was credited as substantial medical evidence reflecting current condition and supported by applicant's credible testimony.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

Concluded applicant sustained cumulative trauma to both feet arising out of employment and was permanent and stationary as of December 16, 2024.

Opinion was found stale and not substantial medical evidence for permanent and stationary status as it did not reflect current condition.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

Concluded applicant was permanent and stationary as of January 22, 2025, and able to return to full duty, but opinion was stale and not substantial medical evidence due to lack of current medical history.

Opinion was rejected as stale and not substantial medical evidence because it did not consider current condition and treatment by PTP Kamdar.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775

A medical opinion of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) is ordinarily followed unless there is good reason to find it unpersuasive.

The WCAB applied this presumption but found the AME opinions stale and unpersuasive due to lack of current medical evidence and treatment history.

From the decision · page 8Petitioner contends in their Petition for Reconsideration that I erred in relying on PTP Dr. Neil Kamdar and that I erred in not relying on AME Dr. Richard Levy and AME Dr. Larry Woodcox. In support of their contention they cite Power v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 775, wherein the Court of Appeals stated, “we begin by presuming that the agreed medical examiner has been chosen by the parties because of his expertise and neutrality. Therefore his opinion should ordinarily be followed unless there is good reason to find that opinion unpersuasive.” While I acknowledge that this generally should be the case the record presented before me clearly showed that AME Dr. Richard Levy’s opinion was no longer substantial medical evidence as it related to Applicant’s permanent and stationary status as it relates to his hernia condition.

Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324 (Appeals Bd. en banc)

A penalty under Labor Code section 5814 is payable only when payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused; a delay is not unreasonable if the defendant had genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint as to liability.

The WCAB found the delay in payment after January 9, 2026, was not unreasonable due to reliance on AME opinions, so the 25% penalty was rescinded but a 10% increase under section 4650(d) was awarded.

From the decision · page 10(Lab. Code, § 5814(a).) As we stated in our en banc opinion in Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1324, 1331 (Appeals Bd. en banc), “[S]ection 5814(a) … provides that a penalty is payable only ‘[w]hen payment of compensation has been unreasonably delayed or refused.’ (Emphasis added.) A delay or a refusal to pay is not ‘unreasonable’ if the defendant had ‘genuine doubt from a medical or legal standpoint as to [its] liability.’ (Kerley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 223, 230 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 152].)” While defendant did delay payment of TTD after January 9, 2026, the delay was not unreasonable as it was based on the conclusions by the AMEs in this case that applicant had become permanent and stationary. AME Dr. Woodcox stated that applicant became permanent and stationary on December 16, 2024, in his Initial Comprehensive Agreed Medical Evaluation of January 15, 2025, and confirmed that it was “more than likely” applicant reached maximum medical improvement MMI in his reevaluation report of January 8, 2026. (Jt. Ex. 101, p. 22; Jt. Ex. 102, p. 30.) AME Dr.

Applicant's credible testimony about worsening hernia symptoms and pain since fall 2025.

From the decision · page 8It is quite clear in reading the reports of PTP Dr. Kamdar, that Applicant’s umbilical hernia is visibly present and that it clearly is affecting the Applicant. This is further supported by Applicant’s own credible testimony wherein he states, “Since the fall of 2025 the hernia feels like it’s expanded. He has discomfort eating and with other activities.” There is no indication that the lifting restrictions provided by PTP Dr. Kamdar relate to anything but the hernia. Nor does it appear that Defendants made any effort to get clarity on this from PTP Dr. Kamdar.