What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order of January 7, 2026 rescinded; case returned to trial level for further proceedings.
Defendant petitioned for reconsideration of the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order of January 7, 2026, which found compensable temporary disability. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter to the trial level for further development and decision.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 WCJ did not analyze whether the applicant reasonably refused or abandoned suitable modified work, which is necessary to determine entitlement to temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found the record insufficient and remanded for further development including QME reporting on disability and work restrictions.
From the decision · page 4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work without good cause.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact is central to determining entitlement to temporary disability indemnity, as refusal or abandonment without good cause negates entitlement.
From the decision · page 4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.
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 was temporarily totally disabled from April 4, 2024 to May 4, 2025, and could return to full duty on May 5, 2024.
The opinion was considered in the context of the applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity and work restrictions at the time of modified work offer.
From the decision · page 3Applicant procured a note from chiropractor Van Sieng Prom, D.C., who is not in defendant's medical provider network. Dr. Prom said that applicant was temporarily totally disabled from April 4, 2024 to May 4, 2025, and would be able to return to full duty on May 5, 2024. However, two or three days after forwarding Dr. Prom's report to his supervisor, applicant was informed that he needed to provide updated work restrictions from the primary treating physician treating him industrially. Applicant apparently did not respond to this but was seen again at the industrial medical clinic on April 12, 2024 where his work restrictions were unaltered from his prior March 28, 2024 visit. Applicant continued to not show up for work and was sent a letter on April 12, 2024 stating:
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
Labor Code section 5909 regarding timely action on petitions for reconsideration.
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period required by the statute to grant reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, Labor Code section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work without good cause.
From the decision · page 4Here, it appears to be uncontested that applicant refused or abandoned an offer of modified work. The relevant inquiry in this matter is whether applicant's refusal or abandonment of modified work was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Here, the WCJ did not analyze this issue.
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.