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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant received a Return-to-Work Supplement payment for a prior injury claim before the injury in the instant case.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Rule 17302(b) prohibits receiving a second RTWSP payment unless the subsequent injury occurs after receipt of every previous payment, leading to denial of applicant's second payment request.
From the decision · page 2Based on this record, after applying the plain language of Reg. 17302(b), I found that applicant's later injury herein occurred before she received payment from the RTWSP in ADJ13342469. Consequently, I upheld the Director's determination of ineligibility and denied applicant's appeal.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Gov. Code 11340 et seq.
Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in Superior Court under the APA.
From the decision · page 5The 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 her quest to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior
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.