What the panel ordered
Affirmed the October 3, 2022 Findings and Order denying applicant's request for a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program benefit under Rule 17302(b)
Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant after WCJ denied second Return-to-Work Supplement Program benefit; WCAB panel reconsidered and affirmed WCJ's decision
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 Appeals Board determined it has jurisdiction to review the denial of a second RTWSP payment and that the validity of Rule 17302(b) must be challenged in Superior Court, not before the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 5person from seeking review from the Appeals Board but also from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Section 5900 specifically provides that any person may seek reconsideration from the Appeals Board of a WCJ's final order, decision, or award. (§ 5900.) Section 5950 provides that any person may seek a writ of review from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of an order, decision, or award of the Appeals Board. (§ 5950.) In contrast, section 139.48(b) and Rule 17309 are silent as to any remedy after the trial level of the WCAB. Prohibiting review from the Appeals Board will also prohibit review from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, which violates the constitutional right to due process. We do not believe that the language in section 139.48 and Rule 17309 create such a draconian limitation. Accordingly, we determine here that applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's denial of a second RTWSP payment is properly before us.