What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration granted in part; June 15, 2023 Joint Findings of Fact and Award amended to reflect applicant entitled to 85.50 weeks of permanent disability benefits in ADJ8188338.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant Department of Correction Inmate Claims, adjusted by State Compensation Insurance Fund, seeking to overturn June 15, 2023 Joint Findings of Fact and Award regarding permanent disability benefits increase under Labor Code section 4658(d).
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 parties stipulated to the permanent disability rating and the 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d), and the Appeals Board declined to overturn the stipulation despite defendant's argument that the increase does not apply to inmate cases.
From the decision · page 2As the WCJ pointed out in his Report, defendant conveniently failed to address that in the Pre-trial Conference Statement as well as in trial, the parties stipulated to the increase found in section 4658(d) and improperly raised this issue for the first time in the Petition. (Pre-trial Conference Statement; Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) dated May 2, 2023, pp. 3:7-9, § 7; 4:11-13, § 7.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Parties stipulated to the permanent disability rating and the 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d) at trial.
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Appeals Board gave effect to the stipulation despite defendant's argument against applicability to inmate cases, leading to applicant's benefit increase being upheld.
From the decision · page 2As the WCJ pointed out in his Report, defendant conveniently failed to address that in the Pre-trial Conference Statement as well as in trial, the parties stipulated to the increase found in section 4658(d) and improperly raised this issue for the first time in the Petition. (Pre-trial Conference Statement; Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) dated May 2, 2023, pp. 3:7-9, § 7; 4:11-13, § 7.)
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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4658(d)
Provides for a 15% increase in permanent disability benefits if employer does not offer suitable work within 60 days of permanent and stationary status.
Labor Code
Labor Code section 3370(a)(5)
Limits average weekly earnings for inmate workers to minimum amounts but does not restrict permanent disability benefit increases under section 4658(d).
Labor Code
Labor Code section 4453
Defines minimum and maximum average weekly earnings for permanent partial disability indemnity computation.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Stipulation by parties to the permanent disability rating and increase under Labor Code section 4658(d) at trial.
From the decision · page 2As the WCJ pointed out in his Report, defendant conveniently failed to address that in the Pre-trial Conference Statement as well as in trial, the parties stipulated to the increase found in section 4658(d) and improperly raised this issue for the first time in the Petition. (Pre-trial Conference Statement; Minutes of Hearing/Summary of Evidence (MOH/SOE) dated May 2, 2023, pp. 3:7-9, § 7; 4:11-13, § 7.)
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.