University Of California Santa Cruz, Permissibly Self-Insured Rebecca Hanson , are necessary because the parties addressed the issue of rebuttal of the diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) factors at the January 6, 2011 trial, and the formal ratings obtained under the 2005 PDRS should just be applied.I. With regard to applicant’s petition for reconsideration, we remain convinced that the exception to the use of the 2005 PDRS was not triggered by defendant’s notice of October 8, 2003. The applicant’s receipt of temporary disability benefits, both temporary total disability and temporary partial disability, was not interrupted when applicant received notice that her two days of temporary total disability would stop. She was paid for the subsequent period of wage loss after defendant calculated the appropriate rate of benefits. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our prior determination, we deny applicant’s petition for reconsideration.II. As for defendant’s petition, our order granting its petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior Findings and Award and returning the matter for a new permanent disability rating under the 2005 PDRS, is not final for purposes of seeking reconsideration. When a final decision is rescinded, a party is not deemed aggrieved until a WCJ issues a new decision after the further proceedings the Appeals Board orders or the WCJ considers appropriate. (Minton v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals. Bd. (1975) 40 Cal.Comp.Cases 313 (writ denied).) Insofar as no final order has issued in the present matter, we will dismiss defendant’s petition for reconsideration. We note defendant’s assertion that there should be no further proceedings as applicant already presented evidence to rebut the DFEC factor, that the WCJ issued rating instructions in accordance with the 2005 PDRS and a formal rating issued. However, due process requires that there be findings of fact on this issue before an award is entered. Although
Menu
