What the panel ordered
The WCAB panel denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and upheld the award of temporary disability benefits to the applicant.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Award served on March 4, 2026, by the WCJ, which was denied by the WCAB panel decision on June 15, 2026.
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 defendant failed to prove that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions, despite the applicant's termination due to an expired work permit. The WCJ's credibility determinations were upheld, and the evidence did not meet the burden of proof to relieve the defendant of liability for temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 5The issue before us is whether applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits where applicant's employment was terminated the day after the industrial injury because his work permit expired, and applicant has not been legally permitted to work since. Here, we find the record is sufficient to affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date he stopped working, for the reasons set forth in the Report. Defendant has not met its burden of proof necessary to establish that defendant made applicant a bona fide offer of modified work to relieve itself of liability to pay applicant temporary disability benefits.2
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's employment was terminated on June 3, 2025, due to failure to renew work visa, and applicant was released to return to work with modified duties on the same date.
Favours neutral
This fact establishes the context for the dispute over entitlement to temporary disability benefits following termination due to expired work permit.
From the decision · page 8Applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment to his lumbar spine, left hip, left thigh, and left knee on 6/2/25, while employed by Defendant. Applicant was terminated on 6/3/25, due to his failure to renew his work visa by that date. On that same date, Applicant's treating physician released him to return to work with modified duties.
Defendant failed to prove that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This failure means the defendant remains liable for temporary disability benefits despite the applicant's termination.
From the decision · page 5The issue before us is whether applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits where applicant's employment was terminated the day after the industrial injury because his work permit expired, and applicant has not been legally permitted to work since. Here, we find the record is sufficient to affirm the WCJ's finding that applicant is entitled to temporary disability benefits from the date he stopped working, for the reasons set forth in the Report. Defendant has not met its burden of proof necessary to establish that defendant made applicant a bona fide offer of modified work to relieve itself of liability to pay applicant temporary disability benefits.2
WCJ found applicant's trial testimony credible and defendant's witness testimony equivocal and ambiguous, giving great weight to WCJ's credibility determinations.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Credibility determinations supported the finding that defendant did not meet its burden of proof to avoid liability for temporary disability benefits.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
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
An employer may be relieved of liability for temporary disability benefits upon making a bona fide offer of modified or alternative work within the employee's medical restrictions.
The defendant failed to establish that a bona fide offer of modified work was made or that modified work was actually available to the applicant within his restrictions, thus remains liable for temporary disability benefits.
From the decision · page 4An offer of regular, modified, or alternative work must be bona fide in order for the
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ found applicant's trial testimony credible and defendant's witness testimony equivocal and ambiguous, giving great weight to WCJ's credibility determinations.
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.