ADJ11126563 · September 18, 2026

The Tree of Life training was not certified or approved under California law, and the voucher expired by operation of law without evidence of tolling. The applicant did not demonstrate entitlement to reimbursement or tolling of the statute of limitations.

From the decision · page 1We previously granted reconsideration 1 to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 9, 2022 Findings of Fact & Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to reimbursement for education-related training or skill enhancement incurred at the Tree of Life training, which the parties stipulated is not a certified provider per California law. The WCJ also found that there is no evidence to show that the two-year statute of limitations for the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher was tolled and that the voucher expired by operation of law. Applicant contends that the legislative purpose of the SJDB is to assist injured workers in obtaining gainful employment and that refusal to reimburse applicant for the Tree of Life training defeats the purpose of the SJDB program. Applicant also contends that the statute of limitations tolled during the time period the insurance carrier denied applicant’s claim and pending adjudication of the issue.

The Tree of Life training is not a certified provider under California law and does not meet the requirements for reimbursement under Labor Code section 4658.7.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supports denial of reimbursement for the training costs.

From the decision · page 2Here, the parties stipulated that the Tree of Life training is not a certified school, making it ineligible under subsection (e)(1). (Minutes of Heating and Summary of Evidence dated March 16, 2022, Admitted Fact no. 5, p. 2:16-18.) Furthermore, we agree that there is nothing in the record suggesting that the Tree of Life training provides clinical pastoral education (CPE) certified by the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education (ACPE) or a certification by the national chaplaincy organization—requirements that are necessary for a chaplain job, as evidenced by Exhibits 4, 5, and 6. Although the Tree of Life training appears to provide a chaplaincy certification (see Exhibit B, p. 3), there is nothing in the record to show that this certification is accredited by the ACPE, which based on the job postings in evidence (Exhibits 4, 5, and 6), is the standard requirement for a chaplain position. Accordingly, we affirm the May 9, 2022 Findings of Fact & Order.

The Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher expired by operation of law on July 1, 2021, with no evidence of tolling or exception.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supports denial of reimbursement based on expiration of the voucher.

From the decision · page 5The SJDBV delineated the eligible expenses including, but not limited to, training/re-training at a California public school or by a provider that is certified on the State’s list and occupational licensing or professional certification fees, related examination fees and exam prep and course fees (Id. at p. 2). The other documentary evidence showed that the ads for chaplain positions submitted by the applicant appear to require schools with Association for Clinical Pastoral Education (ACPE) certification. No evidence was provided to show that “Tree of Life” was ACPE certified (Applicant’s Exhibits 3-7; Defendant’s Exhibit B). The only testimony was from the applicant and he testified that he currently works part- time as a chaplain.

Applicant was aware of the voucher expiration and was not misled by the adjuster; no detrimental reliance or estoppel was shown.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact supports denial of tolling the statute of limitations and reimbursement.

From the decision · page 7reliance on the applicant’s part was demonstrated which would be required for estoppel. Applicant’s testimony showed that he was completely aware that the chaplain training was not on the approved list and was never misled by the adjuster. Without any evidence of misrepresentation on the defendant’s part, there is no detrimental reliance which may have tolled the statute. The voucher expired by operation of law on July 1, 2021 per Labor Code section 4658.7(6)(f). Whatever funds remained prior to that date are no longer available and that is solely due to the applicant’s actions. There is no evidence that any expenses for a State approved photography school were incurred prior to the expiration of the voucher nor is reimbursement justified on the facts. To that end, no additional funds were awarded to the applicant. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the petition for reconsideration be dismissed and/or denied. Dated: June 6, 2022 DIANE BANCROFT Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge

Labor Code

Labor Code section 4658.7

The statute governs the eligibility and expiration of the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher.

From the decision · page 1We previously granted reconsideration 1 to provide an opportunity to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant. This is our Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration. Applicant seeks reconsideration of the May 9, 2022 Findings of Fact & Order, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant is not entitled to reimbursement for education-related training or skill enhancement incurred at the Tree of Life training, which the parties stipulated is not a certified provider per California law. The WCJ also found that there is no evidence to show that the two-year statute of limitations for the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher was tolled and that the voucher expired by operation of law. Applicant contends that the legislative purpose of the SJDB is to assist injured workers in obtaining gainful employment and that refusal to reimburse applicant for the Tree of Life training defeats the purpose of the SJDB program. Applicant also contends that the statute of limitations tolled during the time period the insurance carrier denied applicant’s claim and pending adjudication of the issue.

Applicant testified he was aware the Tree of Life training was not certified and that the voucher had a two-year expiration period; no evidence of misrepresentation by the adjuster was found.

From the decision · page 7reliance on the applicant’s part was demonstrated which would be required for estoppel. Applicant’s testimony showed that he was completely aware that the chaplain training was not on the approved list and was never misled by the adjuster. Without any evidence of misrepresentation on the defendant’s part, there is no detrimental reliance which may have tolled the statute. The voucher expired by operation of law on July 1, 2021 per Labor Code section 4658.7(6)(f). Whatever funds remained prior to that date are no longer available and that is solely due to the applicant’s actions. There is no evidence that any expenses for a State approved photography school were incurred prior to the expiration of the voucher nor is reimbursement justified on the facts. To that end, no additional funds were awarded to the applicant. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the petition for reconsideration be dismissed and/or denied. Dated: June 6, 2022 DIANE BANCROFT Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge