Beverly Phillips, vs. Western Digital, Permissibly Self-insured And Specialty Risk Services, Claims Administrator,

In this case, Western Digital, a permissibly self-insured company, and Specialty Risk Services, a claims administrator, are appealing a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that awarded Beverly Phillips, the applicant, vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance benefits (VRMA) at the temporary disability indemnity rate beginning December 8, 2003, to and including November 5, 2008. The defendants argue that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over vocational rehabilitation benefits and services because Labor Code Section 139.5, the enabling statute for California's workers' compensation vocational rehabilitation program, was repealed effective January 1, 2009. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the decision, and returned the matter to the trial level to hold for further decision, pending the Appeals

WESTERN DIGITAL, permissibly self-insured and SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, claims administrator, BEVERLY PHILLIPS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABEVERLY PHILLIPS, Applicant,vs.WESTERN DIGITAL, permissibly self-insured and SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, claims administrator, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ187153 (AHM 0108802)ADJ2066706 (ARM 0108887)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION            Defendant and applicant each seek reconsideration of the Findings, Award and Order of March 10, 2009, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied defendant’s appeal of the November 6, 2008 determination of the Rehabilitation Unit and awarded applicant vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance benefits (VRMA) at the temporary disability indemnity rate beginning December 8, 2003, to and including November 5, 2008.            Defendant contends that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over vocational rehabilitation benefits and services because Labor Code Section 139.5, the enabling statute for California’s workers’ compensation vocational rehabilitation program, was repealed effective January 1, 2009. Additionally, defendant claims that the WCJ erred in finding applicant entitled to VRMA because she retired from the labor market and is not a qualified injured worker.            Applicant contends that the WCJ erred (1) by failing to find her entitled to ongoing VRMA to date and continuing and (2) by failing to find her entitled to rehabilitation services.            Both parties have filed an answer to the petition filed by their opponent. We have not received a Report and Recommendation (Report) from the WCJ, who is currently unable to prepare a Report. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision, and return the matter to the trial level to hold for further decision, pending the Appeals Board’s , decision after reconsideration in the Order Allowing Amicus Brie

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.