Merle C. Rabine examines the recent California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel decisions Odle v. Heintschel Plastering, Inc. 2007 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 226, Anzevino v. Subsequent Injuries Fund 2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 2, Lacentra v. Cal State Hayward 2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 9, and Karas v. Los Rios Community College District 2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 8.

According to Rabine:

LeBoeuf is still good law, but subject to apportionment: Odle v. Heintschel Plastering, Inc., 2007 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 226 (Appeals Board panel decision).

When an applicant must establish preexisting disability in order to prove eligibility for an award against the Subsequent Injuries Fund, his or her unrebutted testimony can constitute substantial evidence of that disability: Anzevino v. Subsequent Injuries Fund, 2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 2 (Appeals Board panel decision).

Employer is not entitled to credit against applicant's third-party recovery for benefits paid prior to third-party settlement:  Lacentra v. Cal State Hayward,  2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 9 (Appeals Board panel decision).

Untimely panel QME report is inadmissible:  Karas v. Los Rios Community College District, 2008 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 8 (Appeals Board panel decision).

To read Rabine's comments on these cases, please read his Expert Commentary article.

Subscribers can access the complete commentary on lexis.com. Additional fees may be incurred.