Here are some recent noteworthy panel decisions issued by the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. If you would like a copy of any of these decisions, please logon to your web center account and post a comment to this blog with your request, or email me directly. If you haven't registered at this site yet, you must do so before you can logon to post a comment. Registration at our web center is free.

Luis Pena, Applicant v. City of Santa Rosa, PSI, adjusted by Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund, Defendant

Permanent Disability—Notice of Offer of Regular, Modified or Alternative Work—WCAB denied defendant's petition for reconsideration of  WCJ's finding that, pursuant to Labor Code § 4658(d), defendant was entitled to a 15 percent decrease in permanent disability payments made to applicant/police officer with 4/14/2007 low back injury after defendant served notice of an offer of regular work, but was not entitled to 15 percent reduction on all accrued permanent disability payments owed to applicant from last payment of temporary disability, when defendant failed to provide applicant with notice regarding entitlement to permanent disability benefits with last payment of temporary disability as required under Labor Code § 4061(a)(2) and did not timely commence payment of permanent disability advances pursuant to Labor Code § 4650(b), thereby exposing itself to a penalty (increase) on permanent disability benefits, and WCAB found that it would be unjust for defendant to benefit from provisions of Labor Code § 4658(d) by receiving a 15 percent reduction on all permanent disability payments when it ignored other statutory provisions designed to benefit injured worker.

Carolee Peterson, Applicant v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants

Medical Provider Networks—WCAB, denying defendant's petition for reconsideration, held that applicant is entitled to be treated by her primary treating physician, even though he is not member of defendant's medical provider network, when WCAB found that applicant began her employment with defendant on 9/4/89, which preceded enactment of medical provider networks statute, that at some point defendant established its medical provider network, that during period from 9/2006 to 4/6/2007 applicant sustained cumulative injury AOE/COE to right shoulder, right upper extremity, and claims to have sustained injury to sleep, psyche, and internal, that there is no evidence that defendant complied with 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 9767.6(d), requiring defendant to notify applicant of her right to be treated by physician of her choice within medical provider network after first visit with medical provider network physician, since, in fact, there is no evidence that applicant was even seen by medical provider network physician designated by employer, and that there is no evidence that defendant complied with 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 9767.12(a), requiring that, when defendant implemented medical provider network, or when it sought to transfer applicant into its network, it notified applicant in writing (in English and Spanish) about network 30 days prior to implementation of network, or 30 days prior to seeking to transfer applicant into network, and that notice included information required by 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 9767.12(a)(1)-(13).  

© Copyright 2009 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.