Xcelsis Corporation; State Compensation Insurance Fund Didier Rosa WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADIDIER ROSA, Applicant,vs.XCELSIS CORPORATION; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant. Case No. ADJ2723383 (LAO 0839406)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION On April 15, 2010, we granted defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)’spetition for reconsideration in order to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual andlegal issues in this case. This is our decision after reconsideration. Applicant, while employed as a customer service representative from October 7, 2002,through December 29, 2003, sustained an industrial injury to his neck.Applicant requested vocational rehabilitation services. SCIF did not respond. On Januar)’24, 2006, the Rehabilitation Unit issued a Determination stating that: “1. Due to failure of theclaims administrator fSCIFJ to demonstrate that the above-captioned employee is not a qualifiedinjured worker, the Rehabilitation Unit shall authorize the provision of vocational rehabilitationservices at the expense of the employer. … 4. The employee is entitled to retroactive benefits atthe ‘delay rate’ for the period 12/14/04 & continuing.” SCIF did not appeal the Determination, andit became final. After a complicated procedural history’ that need not be recounted here, the case came onfor trial on October 6, 2009. The parties stipulated that SCIF had paid temporary disabilityindemnity from December 30. 2003, to November 1, 2004, and paid for some medical treatment.One of the issues raised was: ‘’Applicant is seeking enforcement of determination of therehabilitation unit, dated January’ 24, 2006. arguing that said determination was a final order.”Applicant testified. , A Findings and Award issued on October 19, 2009, but it was rescinded because the WCJ didyot address the issue of enforcement of the rehabilitation determination. The case was again
