What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order denying the applicant's request for a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program payment under Rule 17302(b).
Petition for reconsideration of the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order denying applicant's request for a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program payment.
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 that Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second RTWSP payment unless the individual receives a subsequent SJDB Voucher for a later injury, and the applicant did not meet this requirement. The Board also held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the regulation's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to an additional payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) because applicant received an earlier RTWSP in connection with a prior injury after the date of the instant injury from which applicant is claiming RTWSP benefits. Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP payment "except where the individual receives a [Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB)] Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant received a prior RTWSP payment connected to an earlier injury before the instant injury's cumulative trauma period ended on October 28, 2015.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact triggered Rule 17302(b)'s prohibition on a second RTWSP payment without a subsequent SJDB Voucher for a later injury.
Applicant's remedy to challenge the validity of Rule 17302(b) lies in Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act, not before the Appeals Board.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board held it lacked authority to invalidate the regulation and affirmed the denial of the second RTWSP payment.
From the decision · page 6The Director's authority to develop regulations for the eligibility and amount of the RTWSP payments is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) found in Government Code, section 11340 et seq. Government Code, section 11350 provides that, "Any interested person may obtain a judicial declaration as to the validity of any regulation or order of repeal by bringing an action for declaratory relief in the superior court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure." In Dennis v. State of California (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 389, 403 [2020 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 19] (Appeals Board en banc), we invalidated Rule 10133.54, a regulation promulgated by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation. Rule 10133.54, unlike Rule 17302(b), was not governed by the APA. (Gov. Code, § 11351(c) [Judicial review as to the validity of a regulation in the Superior Court "shall not apply to the Division of Workers' Compensation."].) Here, Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court. That is, applicant's remedy in his quest to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 17302(b)
Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP payment except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement.
Applied to deny applicant's second RTWSP payment request.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the August 15, 2023 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to an additional payment from the Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) because applicant received an earlier RTWSP in connection with a prior injury after the date of the instant injury from which applicant is claiming RTWSP benefits. Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP payment "except where the individual receives a [Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB)] Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)
Lab. Code, 139.48
Section 139.48 authorizes the Director to adopt regulations for eligibility and amount of RTWSP payments and provides for review at the trial level of the WCAB.
Interpreted to allow review of Director's determinations at trial level but not to invalidate regulations by the Appeals Board.
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.