Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ11110973

Regular

May 23, 2025

Jorge Aragon vs. El Super, Safety National Casualty Corporation, Tristar Risk Management

The applicant, Jorge Aragon, sought reconsideration of a decision denying him a second payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP). The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found him ineligible based on Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second RTWSP payment if the subsequent injury occurs before receiving the previous supplement. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the applicant's remedy to challenge the validity of Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board, as the rule is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The Board also clarified its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite RTWSP's contention.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48invalid regulationarbitrary and capriciousArticle XIV section 4Administrative Procedures Act

References

Case No. ADJ13342468

Regular

May 23, 2025

AMELIA MINA vs. NMA INSPECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Applicant Amelia Mina sought reconsideration of an October 3, 2022 Findings and Order, which denied her a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b). She argued the rule was inconsistent with its authorizing statute, violated equal protection, and constituted invalid special legislation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the prior decision, finding the applicant's second injury occurred before receipt of the first RTWSP payment, making her ineligible under Rule 17302(b). The Board also determined that the jurisdiction to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act, not the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDBRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Release

References

Case No. ADJ10813026

Regular

May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48

References

Case No. ADJ11298015

Regular

May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that she was precluded from a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit, despite receiving a second Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The applicant contended that her second voucher was 'subsequent' to her first RTWSP payment, fulfilling an exception in Rule 17302(b). The Appeals Board clarified that the exception refers to the date of injury being subsequent, not the voucher issuance date. As the record lacked a finding on the cumulative trauma date of injury, the Board rescinded the previous order and returned the case to the trial level for this determination.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB vouchercumulative trauma injuryspecific injurydate of injuryLabor Code section 139.48Rule 17302Rule 17309Administrative Procedures Act

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

Jorge Aragon vs. El Super, Safety National Casualty Corporation, Tristar Risk Management

AMELIA MINA vs. NMA INSPECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego