Applicant received a prior Return-to-Work Supplement payment for an injury occurring before the current injury.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact triggers the application of Rule 17302(b) which prohibits a second RTWS payment unless the subsequent injury occurs after all previous RTWS payments.
From the decision · page 2Based on the Trial Briefs submitted by the parties, the basis of this denial
of eligibility for a second RTWS was CCR section 17302(b) which states:
"An individual who has received a Return-to-Work Supplement may not
receive a second or subsequent Return-to-Work-Supplement, except where
the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to
receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement." Applicant's
05/26/2022 injury claim herein against Transforce, Inc. occurred prior to
Applicant's 08/15/2022 receipt of a RTWS issued in a previous case, D.
the applicant v. J.B. Hunt, case number ADJ14202486. (Petition for
Reconsideration p.3, lines 10-11).
Rule 17302(b) prohibits a second or subsequent Return-to-Work Supplement payment except under specific conditions.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The denial of the second RTWS payment was based on this regulatory provision, which the Appeals Board upheld.
From the decision · page 3(b) An individual who has received a Return-to-Work Supplement may not
receive a second or subsequent Return-to Work-Supplement, except where
the individual receives a Voucher for an injury which occurs subsequent to
receipt of every previous Return to Work Supplement. (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, § 17302.)
The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate Rule 17302(b); judicial review lies with the Superior Court.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The Board declined to invalidate the rule and directed the applicant to seek judicial review in Superior Court.
From the decision · page 5Accordingly, we determine here that applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's
denial of a second RTWS payment is properly before us. However, it is undisputed, and applicant
admits, that based on Rule 17302(b), applicant is not entitled to a second RTWS payment.
(Petition, pp. 6:23-7:3.) Applicant, instead, asks us to invalidate Rule 17302(b). Whether we have
the authority to invalidate Rule 17302(b) is a complicated question because of the statutory
interplay between the powers of the RTWSP and the Appeals Board in the administration of the
RTWS program. Nevertheless, we need not answer this question. The Director's authority to
develop regulations for the eligibility and amount of the RTWS payments is governed by the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) found in Government Code, section 11340 et seq.
Government Code, section 11350 provides that, "Any interested person may obtain a judicial
declaration as to the validity of any regulation or order of repeal by bringing an action for
declaratory relief in the superior court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure." That is,
applicant's remedy in his quest to invalidate Rule 17302(b) lies with the Superior Court.