What the panel ordered
The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and deferred the issuance of a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record.p. 8
Defendant filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ on May 22, 2026. The WCJ's decision was preliminarily reviewed by the Appeals Board, which granted the Petition for Reconsideration and deferred the final decision pending further review.
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.
Further development of the record is required to determine if the applicant suffered injury to the right elbow.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that: on February 27, 2023, while employed by defendant as a phlebotomist, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right wrist, cervical spine, right shoulder, right hand and fingers; further development of the record is required to determine whether applicant suffered injury to her right elbow in the form of supplemental reporting from panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Rod Melvin, D.C.; applicant worked for both Providence St.
The record is not properly developed on whether the applicant was temporarily partially disabled during periods when temporary total disability benefits were paid, requiring further study.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that: on February 27, 2023, while employed by defendant as a phlebotomist, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right wrist, cervical spine, right shoulder, right hand and fingers; further development of the record is required to determine whether applicant suffered injury to her right elbow in the form of supplemental reporting from panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Rod Melvin, D.C.; applicant worked for both Providence St.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to right wrist, cervical spine, right shoulder, right hand and fingers on February 27, 2023.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This establishes compensable injury to multiple body parts relevant to disability and benefits.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that: on February 27, 2023, while employed by defendant as a phlebotomist, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right wrist, cervical spine, right shoulder, right hand and fingers; further development of the record is required to determine whether applicant suffered injury to her right elbow in the form of supplemental reporting from panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Rod Melvin, D.C.; applicant worked for both Providence St.
Applicant had concurrent employment with Innovative Health Diagnostics during medically certified periods of temporary total disability from February 27, 2023 to February 26, 2025.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact is relevant to the determination of temporary disability benefits and wage loss calculations.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that: on February 27, 2023, while employed by defendant as a phlebotomist, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right wrist, cervical spine, right shoulder, right hand and fingers; further development of the record is required to determine whether applicant suffered injury to her right elbow in the form of supplemental reporting from panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Rod Melvin, D.C.; applicant worked for both Providence St.
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 on disability from February 27, 2023 to June 2023 when she returned to work with restrictions; not permanent and stationary; all periods of disability were appropriate to date.
The QME opined that all periods of disability were appropriate and that the applicant had not reached maximal medical improvement.
From the decision · page 3at p. 22.) Dr. Bos found applicant able to return to full duty and then at the subsequent evaluation on August 30, 2023, found applicant permanent and stationary for her right hand. (Id. at pp. 22, 24.) On August 9, 2023, Dr. Peter Borden saw the applicant for an orthopedic surgery initial evaluation. (Id. at pp. 22-23.) Dr. Borden evaluated the applicant for her right shoulder and placed her on modified work. (Id.) Dr. Borden continued to place her on modified work as of the report dated September 13, 2023. (Id. at pp. 24-25.) In the supplemental report dated January 13, 2025, the QME opined all periods of disability were appropriate to date and that applicant was on disability from February 27, 2023 to June 2023 when she returned to work with restrictions. (Applicant’s Exhibit 3, Report of Dr. Melvin, January 13, 2025, at p. 48.) The QME opined that applicant had not reached maximal medical improvement and was not considered permanent and stationary. (Id. at p. 49.) On April 20, 2026, the parties proceeded to trial on the issues of 1) parts of body injured for the neck, right shoulder, and right elbow; 2) earnings; 3) temporary disability; and 4) attorney fees. Defendant also asserted an overpayment of temporary total disability benefits while applicant asserted section 4650 and 5814 penalties. (Minutes of Hearing (MOH), dated April 20, 2026, at p.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Gonzales v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Board (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 843; Labor Code sections 4650-4657
Temporary disability indemnity is paid while an injured worker is unable to work due to work-related injury and substitutes for lost wages; liability ceases when employee returns to work, is medically able to return, or becomes permanent and stationary.
The record is not properly developed on whether applicant was temporarily partially disabled during periods when temporary total disability benefits were paid, requiring further study.
From the decision · page 5Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on June 16, 2026. II. We highlight the following legal principles that may be relevant to our review of this matter: Temporary disability indemnity is a workers’ compensation benefit that is paid while an injured worker is unable to work because of a work-related injury and is primarily intended to substitute for lost wages. (Gonzales v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Board (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 843 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 1477]; J. T. Thorp, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Butler) (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 333 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 224].) The purpose of temporary disability indemnity is to provide a steady source of income during the time the injured worker is not at work. (Gonzales, supra, at p. 1478.) Generally, a defendant’s liability for temporary disability payments ceases when the employee returns to work, is deemed medically able to return to work, or becomes permanent and stationary. (Lab. Code, §§ 4650-4657; Huston v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 856, 868 [44 Cal.Comp.Cases 798]; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. I.A.C. (Lemons) (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 585, 586-587 [7 Cal.Comp.Cases 250]; Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's concurrent employment with Innovative Health Diagnostics during medically certified periods of temporary total disability from February 27, 2023 to February 26, 2025.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) issued by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 22, 2026. The WCJ found, in relevant part, that: on February 27, 2023, while employed by defendant as a phlebotomist, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right wrist, cervical spine, right shoulder, right hand and fingers; further development of the record is required to determine whether applicant suffered injury to her right elbow in the form of supplemental reporting from panel qualified medical evaluator (QME), Dr. Rod Melvin, D.C.; applicant worked for both Providence St.
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.