What the panel ordered
February 15, 2022 Findings and Order rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant, decision after reconsideration by WCAB panel
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Board found no determination of the date of injury for the cumulative trauma, which is necessary to decide if the injury date is subsequent to the prior RTWSP payment, so the matter was returned to the trial level for further findings.
From the decision · page 4Applicant contends that the voucher she received on February 25, 2021 in connection with her April 20, 2017 through April 20, 2018 cumulative trauma injury is subsequent to the January 15, 2021 RTWSP payment she received in connection with her January 17, 2018 injury, and she therefore meets the exception in Rule 17302(b). The exception in Rule 17302(b) applies "where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302.) The term "subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement" modifies the word "injury" not the word "Voucher." In other words, the exception applies where the injury occurs subsequent to receipt of every Return to Work Supplement. Here, the question is whether the date of injury of the cumulative trauma injury is subsequent to the January 15, 2021 RTWSP payment.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No finding on the date of injury for the cumulative trauma injury
Favours Applicant prevailed
Without this finding, the Board could not determine if the injury date was subsequent to the prior RTWSP payment, which is necessary to decide eligibility for a second RTWSP benefit.
From the decision · page 5as to date of injury of the cumulative trauma.3 We are, therefore, unable to determine whether the date of injury of the cumulative trauma is subsequent to the January 15, 2021 RTWSP payment and return this matter to the trial level to make such a finding.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Report dated July 23, 2019 indicating cumulative trauma injury from April 20, 2017 to April 20, 2018 arose out of and in the course of employment, suggesting the date of injury may be as early as April 20, 2018.
From the decision · page 53 However, we note that there is a Qualified Medical Evaluation report dated July 23, 2019, although not admitted into evidence, indicating that applicant's cumulative trauma injury from April 20, 2017 to April 20, 2018 arose out of and in the course of employment, suggesting that the date of injury for applicant's cumulative trauma may be as early as April 20, 2018. (Report of Neil J. Halbridge, M.D. dated July 23, 2019, p. 7.)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 139.48; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 17302(b)
Eligibility for a second Return-to-Work Supplement is governed by Labor Code section 139.48 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 17302(b).
The Board applied these to determine eligibility and the need to find the date of injury for the cumulative trauma.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
No finding on date of injury for cumulative trauma injury
From the decision · page 5as to date of injury of the cumulative trauma.3 We are, therefore, unable to determine whether the date of injury of the cumulative trauma is subsequent to the January 15, 2021 RTWSP payment and return this matter to the trial level to make such a finding.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.