ADJ20337002 · July 21, 2026

The Appeals Board found that defendant did not meet its burden to prove a bona fide offer of modified work and that applicant was not terminated for cause unrelated to the industrial injury; therefore, applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 19, 2024 to January 6, 2026, with the issue of benefits thereafter deferred.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Award, and Order (FA&O) issued on May 18, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). By the FA&O, as relevant here, the WCJ found that on December 19, 2024, applicant sustained an injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment to the low back, right hand and left hand; applicant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits from December 19, 2024, through September 14, 2025; and that applicant was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after September 15, 2025. Applicant alleges that the WCJ found applicant’s testimony credible and defendant employer did not establish that modified duty was actually offered to applicant. She contends that the WCJ relied on an incorrect premise that she failed to adequately respond to employer communications, and that defendant did not meet its burden to show job abandonment or termination for cause so that she is entitled to temporary disability benefits after September 15, 2025. We received an Answer from defendant. The WCJ issued a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that the Petition be denied.

Applicant's credible testimony that she was told not to return to work until healthy and that no modified work was offered despite availability.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Supported finding that applicant was entitled to temporary total disability benefits as employer did not offer suitable work.

From the decision · page 5The credible portion of the employer’s testimony was that it kept following up with Applicant via email and U.S. mail and that Applicant did not provide sufficient information about treatment and restrictions. The employer also credibly testified that it had modified duty available. However, the employer provided no testimony, credible or otherwise, that it offered modified duty to Applicant....

Defendant did not prove a bona fide offer of modified work to applicant after her release with restrictions.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This failure meant defendant remained liable for temporary total disability benefits during the relevant period.

Applicant was not terminated for cause unrelated to the industrial injury; no evidence of misconduct or absenteeism unrelated to injury was shown.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This meant applicant's entitlement to temporary total disability benefits was not cut off by termination for cause.

From the decision · page 11(1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 638-639 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As such, based on the foregoing analysis and following our complete and independent review of the entire evidentiary record, we find the existing record does not support finding defendant satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant’s termination was for good cause, unrelated to the industrial injury. Here, a review of the record reveals no conduct on applicant’s part that would rise to the level of misconduct precluding her from entitlement to temporary disability benefits. Defendant presented no evidence nor suggested that applicant had issues with absenteeism or any other workplace misconduct prior to her industrial injury that would result in termination. Moreover, defendant failed to establish that applicant’s absence from work was unrelated to her industrial injury. In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ found that applicant “failed to properly respond to the good faith inquiries from the employer as to medical status and work restrictions.

Found applicant reached maximum medical improvement with permanent work restrictions including limits on bending, twisting, and lifting no more than 10 pounds.

From the decision · page 2We will review the relevant facts. Applicant, while employed by defendant, sustained an admitted injury to the low back and bilateral hands arising out of and occurring in the course of employment on December 19, 2024. The record includes emails from defendant addressed to “Maria” at an email address beginning with “storm[…].” (Def. Exhs. F; G; H; I.) Emails dated January 3, 2025 and January 16, 2025 (Def. Exhs. F; G; H.) and dated March 7, 2025 (Def. Exh. I, p. 1, ¶ 1-4) discuss the need for doctors’ notes and state that applicant has not reported to work. Following the injury, applicant treated with primary treating physician (PTP) Isaac Vargas, D.O. In a report dated March 24, 2025, Dr. Vargas indicated he found applicant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), and she was discharged from care with permanent work restrictions including limits on bending and twisting, and no repeatedly lifting, pulling, pushing, or carrying greater than 10 pounds. (Def. Exh. C, p. 1, ¶ 1; p. 4, ¶ 8-p.

Issued work restrictions including no repetitive bending/twisting, no lifting over 10 pounds occasionally, and no repetitive grasping or pushing/pulling with right upper extremity; noted possible need for surgery but not definitive.

From the decision · page 3At an expedited hearing on June 9, 2025, defendant authorized a consultation with PTP Matthew Johnson, D.O. In a report dated July 30, 2025, Dr. Johnson issued work restrictions consisting of no repetitive bending/twisting, no lifting greater than l0 pounds occasionally, no repetitive grasping/squeezing with the right upper extremity, and no repetitive pushing/pulling. (App. Exh. 3, p. 4) On August 21, 2025, applicant was evaluated by Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Mark Casha, D.C., with the assistance of a certified interpreter (App. Exh. 4.) He noted that applicant was employed as a cook, food preparer, and storekeeper. (App. Exh. 4, p. 1, ¶ 3.) He opined applicant had not reached MMI and was not considered permanent and stationary. (App. Exh. 4, p. 23, ¶ 1; p. 25, “AMA Impairment Rating.”) Dr. Casha indicated applicant’s pain was evidenced by inflammation, palpation pain reactions, and degree of muscle hypertonicity, which was consistent with chronic pain. (App. Exh. 4, p. 23, ¶ 4.) He stated there was substantial evidence for industrial causation. (App. Exh. 4, p.

Opined applicant had not reached MMI, was not permanent and stationary, had chronic pain consistent with industrial causation, and was incapable of working any position with current restrictions; recommended care before considering employment.

From the decision · page 3At an expedited hearing on June 9, 2025, defendant authorized a consultation with PTP Matthew Johnson, D.O. In a report dated July 30, 2025, Dr. Johnson issued work restrictions consisting of no repetitive bending/twisting, no lifting greater than l0 pounds occasionally, no repetitive grasping/squeezing with the right upper extremity, and no repetitive pushing/pulling. (App. Exh. 3, p. 4) On August 21, 2025, applicant was evaluated by Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Mark Casha, D.C., with the assistance of a certified interpreter (App. Exh. 4.) He noted that applicant was employed as a cook, food preparer, and storekeeper. (App. Exh. 4, p. 1, ¶ 3.) He opined applicant had not reached MMI and was not considered permanent and stationary. (App. Exh. 4, p. 23, ¶ 1; p. 25, “AMA Impairment Rating.”) Dr. Casha indicated applicant’s pain was evidenced by inflammation, palpation pain reactions, and degree of muscle hypertonicity, which was consistent with chronic pain. (App. Exh. 4, p. 23, ¶ 4.) He stated there was substantial evidence for industrial causation. (App. Exh. 4, p.

Lab. Code, § 4650 et seq.; Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463; Livitsanos v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 744; Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ochoa) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 790; Herrera v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

Temporary disability indemnity substitutes for lost wages during transitory incapacity to work; temporary total disability occurs when employee cannot earn any income during recovery.

The Board applied these standards to determine entitlement to temporary total disability benefits.

From the decision · page 7The Workers’ Compensation Act provides for temporary and permanent disability indemnity. (Lab. Code, § 4650 et seq.) Temporary disability indemnity is intended primarily to substitute for the worker’s lost wages, in order to maintain a steady stream of income. (Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463, 473 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) Unlike permanent disability, which compensates an injured employee for diminished future earning capacity or decreased ability to compete in the open labor market, temporary disability is intended as a substitute for lost wages during a period of transitory incapacity to work. (Livitsanos v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 744, 753; see also Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ochoa) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 790, 795 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1044].) Temporary total disability occurs when an employee is unable to earn any income during the period of recovery. (Herrera v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.

Vittone v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 435; Haile v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 832; City of Seaside v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598

An injured worker may be estopped from claiming temporary disability indemnity if refusing suitable modified work without good cause or abandoning the job after modified work is provided.

The Board found defendant did not prove a bona fide offer of modified work, so estoppel did not apply.

From the decision · page 8(General Foundry Service v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Board (Jackson) (1986) 42 Cal.3d 331, 339, fn. 5 [51 Cal.Comp.Cases 375].) However, an applicant may be estopped from claiming temporary disability indemnity corresponding to periods that they have refused suitable modified work without good cause. (Vittone v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 435 (writ den.).) The same rule applies when an injured worker abandons the job after suitable modified work is provided. (Haile v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 832, 835 (writ den.).) A mere allegation that defendant would have offered modified work, had applicant not been terminated, is insufficient. (See City of Seaside v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Sanchez) (1991) 56 Cal.Comp.Cases 598 (writ den.).) Here, the WCJ concluded that defendant “provided no testimony, credible or otherwise, that it offered modified duty to Applicant. This failure to accommodate work restrictions results in the obligation to pay TTD [total temporary disability] benefits effective December 19, 2024…” (Opinion on Decision, p. 4, ¶ 3-4.) We agree.

Applicant's credible testimony that she was told by a low-level manager not to return to work until healthy, and that defendant did not offer modified work despite having it available.

From the decision · page 5The credible portion of the employer’s testimony was that it kept following up with Applicant via email and U.S. mail and that Applicant did not provide sufficient information about treatment and restrictions. The employer also credibly testified that it had modified duty available. However, the employer provided no testimony, credible or otherwise, that it offered modified duty to Applicant....

Defendant's failure to prove a bona fide offer of modified work, with vague communications and no specific job duties offered to applicant within her restrictions.

No evidence of misconduct or absenteeism unrelated to industrial injury by applicant; termination was not shown to be for good cause unrelated to injury.

From the decision · page 11(1970) 1 Cal.3d 627, 638-639 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) As such, based on the foregoing analysis and following our complete and independent review of the entire evidentiary record, we find the existing record does not support finding defendant satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that applicant’s termination was for good cause, unrelated to the industrial injury. Here, a review of the record reveals no conduct on applicant’s part that would rise to the level of misconduct precluding her from entitlement to temporary disability benefits. Defendant presented no evidence nor suggested that applicant had issues with absenteeism or any other workplace misconduct prior to her industrial injury that would result in termination. Moreover, defendant failed to establish that applicant’s absence from work was unrelated to her industrial injury. In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ found that applicant “failed to properly respond to the good faith inquiries from the employer as to medical status and work restrictions.