The point of this article is that in many cases currently pending before the W.C.A.B., the parties are placing their hyper-technical legal arguments ahead of trying to figure out what is going on in the underlying case. It appears that "common sense" as well as the basic purpose of the workers' compensation system gets lost in the midst of all of these very creative, and possibly intellectually stimulating, legal arguments.

In a recent case, a panel of commissioners took a more "common sense" approach in addressing whether an employee was entitled to temporary disability.

In Boatman v. City of Los Angeles ADJ 6796410, 2011 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 6,applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award wherein it was found that applicant's industrial injury did not result in a period of temporary disability. Applicant argued that the WCJ erred in finding that the industrial injury did not cause temporary disability in that the evidentiary record supported a finding that the applicant was temporarily disabled from February 10, 2009 to March 6, 2009.

In the underlying case, the WCJ found that the applicant was not temporarily disabled because none of the medical reports contained an explicit statement that the applicant was temporarily disabled. Unlike the WCJ, the commissioners found that the record supported a finding of temporary disability from February 10, 2009 to March 6, 2009. In so finding, the commissioners observed:

"In reaching our holding, we are aware that the applicant has the burden of proving his entitlement to temporary disability benefits. (Lab. Code Section 5705; Edwards v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1358, 1360 [writ denied].) We are also aware that any decision of the WCAB must be supported by "substantial evidence." (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 620 [Appeals Board en banc].)... However, in coming to a decision, we are entitled to "draw reasonable inferences from the evidence." (Ybarra v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 987, 990 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1283].) Although no physician explicitly opined that the applicant was temporarily disabled, the fact that the applicant underwent surgery to correct a "significant tear" of the meniscus which required the applicant's wife to help him to get out of bed, and which required two weeks convalescence before the applicant was recommended to undergo physical therapy gives rise to a reasonable inference that he was temporarily disabled for the short time claimed... As noted by the applicant, the fact that some of our inferences are drawn from the applicant's own testimony and history given to Dr. Hatch is not an impediment to our holding. In Western Pacific Railroad v. Industrial Acc. Comm. (Galli) (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 119, 120-121 [1 Cal.Comp.Cases 190] the Court upheld a finding of temporary disability based on the applicant's testimony that he could not work, even though it contradicted the expert medical opinion in evidence. In the present case, there is not even any expert medical testimony contradicting the applicant's temporary disability status."

Accordingly, the panel granted reconsideration and rescinded the Findings and Award issued by the WCJ.

In conclusion, in seems that many of the controversies currently being litigated could be easily resolved if the parties could "step-back" from the issue and remember the basic purpose of the workers' compensation process. Though the correct interpretation and/or application of a statute is important, if the parties could more often remember the purpose of the system in which they work and truly look at what is happening in the underlying case, much of the litigation, not to the mention the delays caused by the litigation, could be avoided.