ADJ3676889 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied.

Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant on November 4, 2020, seeking review of the decision filed October 12, 2020; petition denied by the Appeals Board on July 7, 2021.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Other disputed issueDefendant prevailed

The special master's report and testimony supported the valuation of the guardian's services as nurse case manager duties, and no contrary expert evidence was presented. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report denying the petition for reconsideration.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The special master thoroughly assessed the guardian's services, classifying them as nurse case manager duties and valuing them at the 25th percentile of local nurse case manager wages.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This expert valuation supported the denial of the petition for reconsideration seeking increased compensation for the guardian.

No contrary expert opinion or evidence was presented to challenge the special master's report and recommendations.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 133

Labor Code section 133 grants the Appeals Board power and jurisdiction to do all things necessary or convenient in the exercise of its powers.

Applied to justify the Appeals Board's authority to deny the petition for reconsideration and assign a special master.

From the decision · page 2Pursuant to Labor Code section 133 the Appeals Board "shall have power and jurisdiction to do all things necessary or convenient in the exercise of any power or jurisdiction conferred upon it under this code." The power and jurisdiction conferred on the Appeals Board includes the authority to assign a special master. (See also Lab. Code, § 111.)

Labor Code section 4600

Labor Code section 4600 requires employer to provide medical care for injured workers.

Cited in discussion of guardian's services constituting medical care under the Labor Code.

From the decision · page 9DISCUSSION The case of Hodgman v. Wrkrs. Comp. Appeals Bd. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 44 [72 Cal.Comp.Cases 1202], cited by defendant, distinguishes between the services being provided by a single person (the employee's mother) as conservator (paid, as such, by the employee's estate) and those performed as his guardian ad litem and caregiver. The former included looking after his personal and financial needs, and the latter constituted medical care for which his employer had responsibility under the Labor Code. The court found that the duties for which the provider (Prokosch) was seeking to be paid, in that case, were those she provided to her son (John) in the role as guardian and healthcare provider, not as conservator: The care Prokosch provides--monitoring and managing all of her son's health care needs--qualifies as medical care under Labor Code section 4600. When Prokosch makes decisions regarding John's medical needs, she is performing a service similar to that of the nurse case manager, or the registered nurse on duty, or the physician on duty, or the licensed vocational nurse. Prokosch's purpose as John's guardian is to decide what treatment is appropriate--regardless of whether any of these named professionals originally thought of the treatment or realized the need.

ADJ3676889 · July 7, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page