HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, JOEY M. COSTA, WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOEY M. COSTA, Applicantvs.HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATECOMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ4640837 (GRO 0031810)OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONThe Appeals Board granted reconsideration in this matter to further study the factual andlegal issues in order to give us a complete understanding of the record and to enable us to issue ajust and reasoned decision. The following is our Decision After Reconsideration. Previously, the Appeals Board had issued two en banc decisions in this case.1 In “Costa r’ (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1797, the Appeals Board held that (1) the applicant had not met his burden of proving that the new permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) under Labor Code section 46602 was invalid, and (2) as under former section 4660, current section 4660 allows the parties to present rebuttal evidence to a proposed rating and that the costs of such rebuttal evidence may be allowable under section 5811. In addition, contrary to the determination of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), the costs for the, 1 Pursuant to Labor Code section 115, a majority of the Appeals Board voted that this matter not continue to be determined en banc, but be decided by a three-member panel, as it no longer presents novel issues, nor is uniformity of decision paramount. However, as Commissioner Frank Brass is the only remaining panel member of the original three assigned to this matter, Commissioners Merle Rabine and Janice Murray having completed their terms with the Appeals Board, Commissioners Alfonso Moresi and Deidra Lowe have been assigned in their place.2 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , testimony of the applicant’s vocational rehabilitation expert, Ann Wallace, Ph.D., and for her 11report to the extent “some of her work in preparing that
