Gill

Gill v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

Good Law
167 Cal. App. 3d 306·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1942·213 Cal. Rptr. 140·50 Cal. Comp. Cases 258
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 24, 1985G002336California1,455 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

On September 29, 1982, Edith Gill injured her back in an on-the-job lifting accident. She underwent surgery two months later. After approximately one year, her treating physician declared her condition “permanent and stationary.” He added Gill was “a candidate for certain types of job retraining and she will require the availability of medical follow-up in the future.”

Several weeks later her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier advised she might be eligible for rehabilitation benefits, and she was referred to Workman Morris Associates for an evaluation. At the end of her two-week evaluation, the counselor noted Gill’s “pain-related behaviors . . . [were] felt to contraindicate a return to work at this time” and concluded she did “not appear to be able to return to the competitive labor market.” Based on this report, the employer petitioned the Bureau of Rehabilitation to suspend Gill’s rehabilitation benefits. Gill, who agreed she was physically unable to participate in vocational rehabilitation, did not object. Pursuant to the Bureau’s procedure, the file was closed, but no formal order issued.

The hearing in Gill’s compensation case was held some six months…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.