Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Cruz: The TD Limit Ended Wage Payments, Not the Medical-Treatment Award

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 21, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco, No. SFO 0501425 (WCAB Sept. 5, 2007) (en banc).

Paul Cruz remained temporarily disabled, yet the WCAB ended the additional wage-payment award because his spinal surgeries did not fit the statutory amputation exception. The same order retained an award of medical treatment and deferred other issues. Cruz shows why a temporary-disability cap is not the same thing as recovery, termination of medical care or final resolution of the entire claim. Cruz, pages 2–3, 8–9.

The worker remained disabled when the wage issue was decided

Cruz sustained an admitted back injury on January 4, 2005, received temporary disability into January 2007 and underwent spinal surgery in 2006. His continued temporary disability was undisputed. The judge awarded further payments because the surgery was considered an amputation; the Board reversed that particular finding. No finding of full recovery was needed to reject the claimed exception. Cruz, pages 2–4, 8.

The surgery did not fit the claimed exception

The surgical report described disk removal and an iliac-crest bone graft. The Board defined amputation to include loss of an external projecting appendage, whether traumatic or surgical, but not removal of internal tissue or bone. The rejected surgery theory therefore did not extend the TD period in this case. This brief explanation identifies why the wage award changed; it is not a promise that every qualifying amputation produces the maximum payment period. Cruz, pages 2, 5–8.

The amended award retained medical treatment

The actual amended award matters. It removed the additional temporary-disability entitlement and the associated applicant-attorney-fee finding, but expressly awarded medical treatment under the existing finding. All other issues were deferred and the matter returned to the judge. The decision did not declare every claim issue resolved or erase the treatment award. Cruz, pages 8–10.

The concurrence criticized the cap without changing the result

Commissioner Caplane concurred in the definition and result while criticizing the cap’s impact on workers still healing. Her separate opinion was not a dissent awarding additional payments, and its fairness concerns did not change the order. For a present claim, check the injury-date-specific TD provision separately from medical authorization and any later settlement. The 2005 injury’s two-year framework should not be copied onto every modern claim. Cruz, pages 11–13. The stop-payment record guide explains which notices and payment periods to preserve.

Key takeaways

• Read the amended award, not just the case summary.
• Separate continued disability from qualification for a statutory extension.
• Identify medical treatment and deferred issues that remain open.
• Use the TD provision governing the actual injury date.