What the panel ordered
Affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact denying a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program benefit
Petition for reconsideration of the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact by the WCJ denying a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program benefit under Rule 17302(b)
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 26, 2024.
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 no basis to liberally construe 'injury' to include continuing injury and upheld the regulation prohibiting a second RTWSP benefit except for a subsequent injury voucher.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b). Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP benefit "except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 17302(b).)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant had previously received a Return-to-Work Supplement for a September 17, 2020 injury before applying for a second RTWSP related to the March 19, 2017 injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second RTWSP benefit except for a subsequent injury voucher, which applicant did not have.
From the decision · page 2The applicant had already received a Return-to-Work Supplement for a September 17, 2020 injury at the time he applied for a Return-to- Work Supplement related to the March 19, 2017 injury. The applicant argued that the March 19, 2017 injury continued to affect the applicant in an ongoing manner, and therefore was an injury occurring subsequent to his receipt of RTWSP benefits. (Applicant's Trial Brief filed 8/15/2023, p. 1, line 22-p. 2, line 8.)
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
No change in opinions from 2020 to 2022 reports; noted lack of follow-through on recommended evaluations and treatments.
From the decision · page 2The applicant had a re-evaluation by neurology Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Robert Shorr, M.D. on September 3, 2020, just prior to his subsequent injury. (Applicant's exhibit 4, pp. 1, 5.) At the time the applicant was not yet at a state of maximum medical improvement. (Id. at p. 7.) Dr. Shorr noted in his January 27, 2022 report that:
Applicant continued treatment and was temporarily totally disabled through August 2022; condition not permanent and stationary.
From the decision · page 3Even after the September 17, 2020 injury the applicant continued treating for the March 19, 2017 injury. (Applicant's exhibits 6 and 10.) He treated with primary treating physician Dr. Rutchik, M.D. from November 11, 2021 through September 14, 2022. (Applicant's exhibit 10.) Through the August 17, 2022 appointment, the applicant continued to be temporarily totally disabled by Dr. Rutchik who opined that the applicant's condition was not permanent and stationary. (Id. at p. 10.) During a September 14, 2022 telephonic appointment with his primary treating physician, the applicant indicated that he was declining further treatment in the interest of resolving his claim. (Id. at 10, pp. 1-2.) This included declining the scheduling of an authorized ophthalmology exam. (Id. at 10, p. 2.)
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 benefit except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury subsequent to every previous Return to Work Supplement.
The Board applied this rule to deny the second RTWSP benefit.
From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b). Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent RTWSP benefit "except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Rule 17302(b).)
Lab. Code § 139.48
Section 139.48 authorizes the Director of Industrial Relations to adopt regulations for RTWSP eligibility and amount.
The Board recognized the Director's authority to regulate RTWSP payments and noted judicial review lies in Superior Court for regulation validity challenges.
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony and medical treatment records showing ongoing treatment and temporary total disability status
From the decision · page 3Even after the September 17, 2020 injury the applicant continued treating for the March 19, 2017 injury. (Applicant's exhibits 6 and 10.) He treated with primary treating physician Dr. Rutchik, M.D. from November 11, 2021 through September 14, 2022. (Applicant's exhibit 10.) Through the August 17, 2022 appointment, the applicant continued to be temporarily totally disabled by Dr. Rutchik who opined that the applicant's condition was not permanent and stationary. (Id. at p. 10.) During a September 14, 2022 telephonic appointment with his primary treating physician, the applicant indicated that he was declining further treatment in the interest of resolving his claim. (Id. at 10, pp. 1-2.) This included declining the scheduling of an authorized ophthalmology exam. (Id. at 10, p. 2.)
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.