ADJ21369860 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied.

Petition for reconsideration of WCJ's First Amended Findings and Award of February 27, 2026, denied by the WCAB panel on May 18, 2026.

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.

Permanent disability ratingDefendant prevailedabdomen

Applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212 and did not show good cause to set aside the stipulation, so the stipulated occupational group was upheld for the permanent disability rating.

From the decision · page 5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 according to Dr. Nyquist and no contrary substantial evidence was presented.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supported the denial of temporary disability beyond that date.

From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

Applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212 and did not show good cause to set aside the stipulation.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supported upholding the permanent disability rating based on the stipulated occupational group.

From the decision · page 5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419]

A stipulation is binding unless contrary to law or policy and may be disregarded only for good cause.

Applied to uphold the stipulated occupational group for permanent disability rating.

From the decision · page 5With regard to the issue of occupational group, we note that applicant stipulated to Occupational Group Number 212. "A stipulation is... binding... where the stipulation is not contrary to law, court rule or policy." (Robinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 784, 790 [52 Cal.Comp.Cases 419].) A stipulation may be disregarded only on a showing of "good cause" (Robinson, supra; County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Weatherall) (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118-1121 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 1]). Since applicant has not set forth good cause to set aside the stipulation, we will deny reconsideration with regard to this issue.

Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798]

Temporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period until recovery or permanent and stationary status.

Applied to determine the end of temporary disability benefits based on return to work and MMI.

From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024.

From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

Medical recordsfavours Defendant prevailed

The QME did not offer any contrary opinion to extend temporary disability beyond January 30, 2024.

From the decision · page 4With regard to the issue of temporary disability, "[T]emporary disability indemnity is payable during the injured worker's healing period from the injury until the worker has recovered sufficiently to return to work, or until his/her condition reaches a permanent and stationary status." (Huston v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798].) Thus, even if a condition has not reached maximal medical improvement, entitlement to temporary disability ceases once a worker has sufficiently recovered to return to work. Here, Dr. Nyquist repeatedly stated that applicant was able to return to full duty on January 30, 2024 and the QME did not take exception to this conclusion. Even if we were to accept applicant's argument that Dr. Nyquist's return to work conclusion did not constitute substantial medical evidence because she unduly "deferred" to Dr. Bozac's conclusions, the QME did not offer any contrary

ADJ21369860 · May 18, 2026

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