What the panel ordered
The July 31, 2020 Findings and Award is affirmed.
Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant PT Gaming, administered by Gallagher Bassett, was granted to study legal and factual issues; WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial; WCAB adopted and incorporated the WCJ Report and affirmed the July 31, 2020 Findings and Award.
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.
The WCAB found that the applicant did sustain an injury causing permanent partial disability and is entitled to a SJDB voucher. The compromise and release did not settle the SJDB voucher issue, and the applicant's voluntary resignation does not affect entitlement. The statutory prohibition on settlement of the SJDB voucher was upheld.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 31, 2020 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a gaming table associate from September 4, 2014 to September 4, 2015, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and that the Compromise and Release by the parties did not abrogate applicant's right to a supplemental job displacement benefits voucher (SJDB).
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant's voluntary resignation does not affect entitlement to the SJDB voucher.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact rejects the defendant's argument that resignation abrogates the voucher entitlement.
From the decision · page 3because he voluntarily resigned his job, we conclude that applicant's resignation has no bearing
Compromise and Release did not settle the SJDB voucher as the box was not checked.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact confirms that the applicant's right to the SJDB voucher was preserved despite the settlement.
From the decision · page 3We agree that the parties did not settle the issue of the SJDB voucher in the compromise
Applicant sustained injury causing permanent partial disability and is entitled to a SJDB voucher.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This fact establishes the applicant's eligibility for the SJDB voucher under Labor Code section 4658.7.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the July 31, 2020 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a gaming table associate from September 4, 2014 to September 4, 2015, sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment and that the Compromise and Release by the parties did not abrogate applicant's right to a supplemental job displacement benefits voucher (SJDB).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4658.7, subdivision (g)
Labor Code section 4658.7 prohibits settlement or commutation of a claim for the supplemental job displacement benefit voucher.
The Board enforced the statutory prohibition on settlement of the SJDB voucher, rejecting the exception allowed in Beltran.
From the decision · page 6Subdivision (g) of Labor Code3 section 4658.7 provides that "[s]ettlement or commutation of a claim for the supplemental job displacement benefit shall not be permitted under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 50002 [Compromise and Release]) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5100 [lump sum payments]) of Part 3." (§ 4658.7, subdiv. (g).)
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Defendant admitted liability and did not dispute permanent partial disability, waiving argument against SJDB entitlement.
From the decision · page 3Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 228, 242, fn. 7 (Appeals Board en banc).) Beltran allowed for the settlement of SJDB voucher in the limited circumstance where there exists facts to potentially defeat the right to workers' compensation. There are no such facts here as defendant admitted to liability. (Amended Pre-Trial Conference Statement dated May 26, 2020; Petition, p. 3:20-22 ["... Dr. Sirajullah determined that Applicant had a 5% whole person impairment regarding his right hand...."].) As such, Beltran does not apply here.
The SJDB voucher box was not checked in the compromise and release, indicating no settlement of the voucher.
From the decision · page 3We agree that the parties did not settle the issue of the SJDB voucher in the compromise
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.