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.
SJDB voucherApplicant prevailedleft upper extremity
The Physician's Return-to-Work & Voucher Report by Dr. Black was found to comply with the requirements showing the applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, causing permanent partial disability with work restrictions, thus meeting the burden of proof for entitlement to the SJD voucher. Requiring a P&S report in addition would place form over substance and contradict legislative intent.
From the decision · page 4In the Petition, citing Opus One Labs v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fndkyan) (2019 W/D) 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 634, applicant argues that, since the Appeals Board found "... a P&S report without the AD form is enough to trigger defendant's liability for the SJDB voucher, the Physician's Return-to-Work & Voucher Report provides the information necessary to entitle applicant to receive the voucher." Applicant then argues that to require a P&S report in addition to the report submitted by Dr. Black "would place form over substance" (Petition, p. 3.) Defendant argues that Dr. Black's Physician's Return-to-Work & Voucher Report "... does not address whether the injury caused permanent partial disability" so it does not meet the requirements of Labor Code section 4658.7(b). (Answer, p. 2.) As noted by the WCJ in his Report, "The SJDB Form completed by Dr. Black does state that the disability is permanent and stationary, and it does state the restrictions or work capacities of the Applicant." (Report, p. 6.) We agree with the WCJ that Dr. Black's report states applicant's condition was permanent and stationary, that the injury caused permanent partial disability, and that applicant had work restrictions. Thus, it complied with the requirements of Administrative Director rule 9785(i). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(i).)