Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3846659 (VNO0418631) ADJ4148234 (VNO0456818)

Regular

Jan 30, 2012

MICHELE SHELMAN vs. OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CIGA For Reliance In Liquidation, Administered By SEDGWICK

The applicant's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was denied reconsideration. This is because Labor Code section 139.5, which authorized these benefits, was repealed effective December 31, 2008. The applicant's right to these benefits had not vested before the repeal, as the Rehabilitation Unit's decision was still subject to appeal. Consequently, the repeal extinguished the applicant's inchoate rights to vocational rehabilitation services.

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Repeal of statuteVesting of rightsInchoate rightsFinal judgmentRehabilitation UnitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedBoganim

References

Case No. ADJ2723383

Regular

Oct 13, 2010

DIDIER ROSA vs. XCELSIS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employee seeking vocational rehabilitation services and retroactive benefits after a neck injury. The insurer, SCIF, failed to appeal a Rehabilitation Unit determination that authorized these services and benefits at the "delay rate." Although SCIF argued jurisdiction and statutory repeal issues, the Board affirmed the Unit's determination, finding SCIF waived its defenses by not appealing. However, the Board limited the award of vocational rehabilitation services, finding the right to them was inchoate and expired with legislative changes.

Rehabilitation Unitvocational rehabilitation servicesretroactive benefitsdelay rateghost statutesvested rightsinchoaterepealed statutesLabor Code section 139.5final judgment

References

Case No. ADJ982656

Regular

Nov 17, 2016

WANDA L. MALLOY vs. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEM, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case concerns former attorney Thomas Plumb's attempt to obtain additional attorney's fees and interest on previously awarded fees from vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD) funds. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration. Plumb failed to follow the established procedure for VRTD attorney's fees by not filing a lien or voucher with supporting documentation for over 23 years, rendering his claim inchoate and likely outside the Board's jurisdiction after changes in the law. Furthermore, his claim for interest on past awards was untimely, barred by statutes of limitations, and undermined by his own 22-year delay in pursuing it. Finally, the Board found Plumb was not denied due process as he failed to list the applicant as a witness and no sworn testimony was taken.

Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary DisabilityAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJLabor Code section 5803InterestLienVoucherRocha v. Puccia Construction Company

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

MICHELE SHELMAN vs. OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CIGA For Reliance In Liquidation, Administered By SEDGWICK

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Repeal of statuteVesting of rightsInchoate rightsFinal judgmentRehabilitation UnitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedBoganim

DIDIER ROSA vs. XCELSIS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Rehabilitation Unitvocational rehabilitation servicesretroactive benefitsdelay rateghost statutesvested rightsinchoaterepealed statutesLabor Code section 139.5final judgment

WANDA L. MALLOY vs. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEM, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY

Vocational Rehabilitation Temporary DisabilityAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJLabor Code section 5803InterestLienVoucherRocha v. Puccia Construction Company