What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award of permanent total disability indemnity starting June 9, 2016.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Award issued by the WCJ on February 18, 2026, challenging the start date for permanent total disability payments.
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 Board followed the en banc precedent in Brower, holding that permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is determined, thus payments start June 9, 2016, not July 12, 2023.
From the decision · page 5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant was found permanent and stationary on July 12, 2023 with 75% whole person impairment by QME Dr. Hyman.
Favours neutral
This established the permanent total disability status date but did not change the start date for indemnity payments under the Brower precedent.
From the decision · page 27-8.) At his October 20, 2021 reevaluation, applicant remained permanent and stationary but his WPI increased to 30%. (Exhibit 2, at pp. 6-7.) On June 23, 2022, Dr. Hyman reviewed additional records concerning primarily COVID induced cardiac problems in March [2022] from which applicant has probably "maximally recovered," and indicated a reevaluation was necessary. (Exhibit 3, at p. 2.) At reevaluation on July 12, 2023, applicant's WPI increased to 75%. (Exhibit 4, at p. 5.) Concerning impairment, Dr. Hyman hypothesized as follows: I will give his impairment at the current time although this is likely to get worse with time and then might get significantly better if he has a heart transplant. Current impairment [of 75%] is based on the AMA guidelines, page 36, Table 3-6a.
Applicant was first declared permanent and stationary and assigned 20% WPI on June 9, 2016 by QME Dr. Hyman.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This date was held to be the correct start date for permanent total disability indemnity payments, as temporary disability ended then and permanent total disability was first established.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant sustained injury to his heart while employed by defendant as a police officer, during the period from March 12, 2012 to March 12, 2013. In June 2014, applicant was medically retired for orthopedic reasons. (Exhibit 1, at p. 1.) Richard Hyman, M.D., serves as panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) in internal medicine, cardiology. Dr. Hyman evaluated applicant in person on June 9, 2016, October 20, 2021, July 12, 2023, and December 12, 2024, issued five supplemental reports, June 23, 2022, September 21, 2023, February 6, 2025, May 7, 2025, May 27, 2025, and was deposed on May 28, 2024. On June 9, 2016, Dr. Hyman diagnosed applicant with coronary artery disease, he indicated that the injury was 100% industrial and that applicant was probably permanent and stationary. (Exhibit 1, at p. 7.) There is a need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury. (Id.) Dr Hyman assigned applicant 20% whole person impairment (WPI). (Id. at pp.
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.
Dr. Hyman diagnosed coronary artery disease as 100% industrial and assigned whole person impairment (WPI) ratings increasing from 20% in 2016 to 75% in 2023. He opined applicant was probably permanent and stationary in 2016 and confirmed permanent and stationary status with 75% WPI in 2023. He recommended ongoing medical treatment including evaluation for heart transplant.
Dr. Hyman's evaluations and impairment ratings were central to determining the permanent total disability status and timing of indemnity payments.
From the decision · page 2BACKGROUND We will briefly review the relevant facts. Applicant sustained injury to his heart while employed by defendant as a police officer, during the period from March 12, 2012 to March 12, 2013. In June 2014, applicant was medically retired for orthopedic reasons. (Exhibit 1, at p. 1.) Richard Hyman, M.D., serves as panel qualified medical evaluator (QME) in internal medicine, cardiology. Dr. Hyman evaluated applicant in person on June 9, 2016, October 20, 2021, July 12, 2023, and December 12, 2024, issued five supplemental reports, June 23, 2022, September 21, 2023, February 6, 2025, May 7, 2025, May 27, 2025, and was deposed on May 28, 2024. On June 9, 2016, Dr. Hyman diagnosed applicant with coronary artery disease, he indicated that the injury was 100% industrial and that applicant was probably permanent and stationary. (Exhibit 1, at p. 7.) There is a need for medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of said injury. (Id.) Dr Hyman assigned applicant 20% whole person impairment (WPI). (Id. at pp.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Brower v. David Jones Construction (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550 (WCAB en banc)
Permanent total disability indemnity payments start from the date permanent total disability is first established, not from the date the final level of disability is later determined.
The Board applied this en banc precedent to deny defendant's petition and affirm the start date of June 9, 2016 for permanent total disability payments.
From the decision · page 5II. The WCJ found that applicant was permanent and stationary or maximum medically improved (MMI) on July 12, 2023 (Finding of Fact No. 4). Defendant agrees that applicant was MMI on July 12, 2023, when Dr. Hyman assigned him 75% WPI. (Petition, at p. 3:18-19; 4:1-6.) Then, defendant contends that permanent total disability payments should therefore begin on July 12, 2023. In our en banc decision, Brower v. David Jones Constr. (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 550, we addressed the timing of permanent disability indemnity payments in relation to payment of temporary disability benefits.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Dr. Hyman's medical evaluations and impairment ratings showing increasing impairment to 75% WPI by July 12, 2023
From the decision · page 27-8.) At his October 20, 2021 reevaluation, applicant remained permanent and stationary but his WPI increased to 30%. (Exhibit 2, at pp. 6-7.) On June 23, 2022, Dr. Hyman reviewed additional records concerning primarily COVID induced cardiac problems in March [2022] from which applicant has probably "maximally recovered," and indicated a reevaluation was necessary. (Exhibit 3, at p. 2.) At reevaluation on July 12, 2023, applicant's WPI increased to 75%. (Exhibit 4, at p. 5.) Concerning impairment, Dr. Hyman hypothesized as follows: I will give his impairment at the current time although this is likely to get worse with time and then might get significantly better if he has a heart transplant. Current impairment [of 75%] is based on the AMA guidelines, page 36, Table 3-6a.
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.