What the panel ordered
The Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on January 5, 2022 is rescinded. The Appeals Board finds it does not have jurisdiction to force applicant's participation in a repayment plan or in the local agency's administrative appeals remedy under Labor Code section 4850.4(f). The matter is taken off calendar.
Applicant and defendant both seek reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ on January 5, 2022, regarding jurisdiction over repayment plan under Labor Code section 4850.4(f). The WCJ found jurisdiction primarily with the local agency and limited the Appeals Board's jurisdiction.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 9, 2021.
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 found that initial jurisdiction over repayment plans under section 4850.4(f) vests solely with the local agency that issued the payment, and the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to compel participation in the repayment plan or local agency administrative appeals remedy.
From the decision · page 9FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant and the local agency have not agreed on a repayment plan
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Initial jurisdiction over establishing a repayment plan to repay advanced disability pension payments under Labor Code section 4850.4(f) vests solely with the local agency that issued the payment.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact establishes that the Appeals Board does not have jurisdiction to compel participation in the repayment plan or local agency administrative appeals remedy.
From the decision · page 9FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant and the local agency have not agreed on a repayment plan
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
the applicant v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1128
The Appeals Board has jurisdiction to issue penalties under Labor Code section 5814 for unreasonable delay in making payments under section 4850.4, but does not have jurisdiction over the repayment plan process under section 4850.4(f).
The Court of Appeal held that advanced disability pension payments are compensation under section 3207 and the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to issue penalties under section 5814, but jurisdiction over repayment plans lies with the local agency.
From the decision · page 5Although from a practical perspective the Appeals Board's jurisdiction to issue section 5814 penalties against a local agency for an unreasonably delay in making section 4850.4 payments may presumably compel the agency to initiate payments, jurisdiction over whether an employee qualifies for a disability retirement and therefore was entitled to those advanced payments remains with the local agency. The Court's decision in this matter did not confer jurisdiction on the Appeals Board over whether an employee qualifies for section 4850.4 payments; rather, it recognized the Appeals Board's authority to issue penalties for an
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.