ADJ16283940 · May 22, 2025

The Appeals Board affirmed the denial of a second RTWS payment based on Rule 17302(b) and held that the applicant's remedy to challenge the rule's validity lies in Superior Court, not the Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment pursuant to Rule 17302(b) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 17302(b).)

Applicant received a prior Return-to-Work Supplement payment for an injury occurring before the current injury.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact triggers the application of Rule 17302(b) which prohibits a second RTWS payment unless the subsequent injury occurs after all previous RTWS payments.

From the decision · page 2Based on the Trial Briefs submitted by the parties, the basis of this denial of eligibility for a second RTWS was CCR section 17302(b) which states: "An individual who has received a Return-to-Work Supplement may not receive a second or subsequent Return-to-Work-Supplement, except where the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." Applicant's 05/26/2022 injury claim herein against Transforce, Inc. occurred prior to Applicant's 08/15/2022 receipt of a RTWS issued in a previous case, D. the applicant v. J.B. Hunt, case number ADJ14202486. (Petition for Reconsideration p.3, lines 10-11).

Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent Return-to-Work Supplement payment except under specific conditions.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The denial of the second RTWS payment was based on this regulatory provision, which the Appeals Board upheld.

From the decision · page 3(b) An individual who has received a Return-to-Work Supplement may not receive a second or subsequent Return-to Work-Supplement, 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, § 17302.)

The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate Rule 17302(b); judicial review lies with the Superior Court.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The Board declined to invalidate the rule and directed the applicant to seek judicial review in Superior Court.

From the decision · page 5Accordingly, we determine here that applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's denial of a second RTWS payment is properly before us. However, it is undisputed, and applicant admits, that based on Rule 17302(b), applicant is not entitled to a second RTWS payment. (Petition, pp. 6:23-7:3.) Applicant, instead, asks us to invalidate Rule 17302(b). Whether we have the authority to invalidate Rule 17302(b) is a complicated question because of the statutory interplay between the powers of the RTWSP and the Appeals Board in the administration of the RTWS program. Nevertheless, we need not answer this question. The Director's authority to develop regulations for the eligibility and amount of the RTWS 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." That is, applicant's remedy in his quest to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 17302(b)

Rule 17302(b) of the California Code of Regulations

Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent Return-to-Work Supplement payment except under specific conditions, which was the basis for denial of applicant's second RTWS payment.

From the decision · page 3(b) An individual who has received a Return-to-Work Supplement may not receive a second or subsequent Return-to Work-Supplement, 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, § 17302.)

Labor Code 139.48

Labor Code section 139.48

Section 139.48 authorizes the Director to adopt regulations for eligibility and amount of RTWS payments and provides for Appeals Board review of determinations.

Government Code 11340 et seq.

Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

The Director's authority to develop RTWS regulations is governed by the APA, and judicial review of such regulations lies in Superior Court.

From the decision · page 5Accordingly, we determine here that applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's denial of a second RTWS payment is properly before us. However, it is undisputed, and applicant admits, that based on Rule 17302(b), applicant is not entitled to a second RTWS payment. (Petition, pp. 6:23-7:3.) Applicant, instead, asks us to invalidate Rule 17302(b). Whether we have the authority to invalidate Rule 17302(b) is a complicated question because of the statutory interplay between the powers of the RTWSP and the Appeals Board in the administration of the RTWS program. Nevertheless, we need not answer this question. The Director's authority to develop regulations for the eligibility and amount of the RTWS 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." That is, applicant's remedy in his quest to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court.