An Applicant Is Not Entitled To Temporary Disability Once P & S For Treatment

This case was decided in the Supreme Court of California. Various parries submitted amicus curiae briefs and oral arguments to the court.

The applicant filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The applicant settled the case by way of Stipulation with Request for Award. The applicant stipulated to a period of temporary disability which had ended. The applicant stipulated to a permanent disability of 23 per cent. The applicant also stipulated to the need for future medical treatment.

The applicant returned to work. After returning to work the applicant sought medical treatment that was awarded in the stipulation. The applicant sought this treatment during normal business hours because that was the only time the doctor was available. The employer made the applicant use either sick or vacation time as opposed to paying temporary disability for the time the applicant missed from work while attending these appointments.

The applicant wanted either industrial disability leave or temporary disability instead of using sick or vacation time. The employer refused and the issue came before a Workers’ Compensation Judge( WCJ). The applicant also alleged this was discrimination under Labor Code section 132 (a).

The WCJ found that the applicant was entitled to temporary disability and that there was a violation of Labor Code section 132 (a). The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed. The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court stated that once and industrial injury becomes permanent and stationary, the applicant is no longer entitled to receive temporary disability. The obligation to pay temporary disability ends when the applicant returns to work, is deemed able to return to work, or is permanent and stationary. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability to compensate for wage loss while attending medical appointments.

In regards to the 132 (a) the applicant was not singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to the industrial injury. Therefore, there was no violation of Labor Code section 132 (a).

Case: Department of Rehabilitation v, WCAB (Lauher)

Harvey Brown
3501 Jamboree Rd. Suite 602
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Newsletter Sign up

Workers Compensation Feed

Recent Newsletters