Hardy Diagnostic And State Compensation Insurance Fund Joey M. Costa WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOEY M. COSTA, Applicant,Vs.HARDY DIAGNOSTIC and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s). Case No. GRO 0031810OPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION (EN BANC) On February 26, 2007, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the en banc decision issued in this matter on December 7, 2006, to further study the factual and legal issues in this case. The following is our Decision After Reconsideration. In the decision issued on December 7, 2006, the Appeals Board held that “on the record before us, the applicant had not met his burden of proving the new PDRS [permanent disability rating schedule] invalid.” We also held that, as under former Labor Code section 4660,1 current section 4660, as amended by Senate Bill (SB) 899, continues to allow the parties to present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating under the new PDRS, and that the costs of such rebuttal evidence may be allowable. With respect to the rebuttal evidence here, the testimony and report of Ann Wallace, Ph.D., a vocational rehabilitation consultant, and the costs therefor, we rescinded the determination of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denying reimbursement for such costs, and allowed the parties to adjust them, with jurisdiction reserved at the trial level in event of dispute. More specifically, we stated that Ms. Wallace was entitled to be reimbursed by defendant for the reasonable costs associated with her testimony under section 5811. With respect to her report, although finding that it had been properly excluded from evidence, we concluded that Ms. Wallace was entitled to reimbursement by 1 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Labor Code. , defendant to the extent that “some of her work in preparing that report may have provided a foundation for her testimony.” De
Menu
