What the panel ordered
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (en banc) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the en banc Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration issued June 11, 2009, which rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Award for lack of jurisdiction due to the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 effective January 1, 2009.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold June 11, 2009, April 14, 2009.
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 lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims after the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 effective January 1, 2009, and the applicant's right to retroactive VRMA benefits was not vested before that date.
From the decision · page 116 Our June 11, 2009 en banc decision rescinded the January 13, 2009 Findings and Award of
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 effective January 1, 2009, terminated any rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before that date.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This repeal caused the WCAB to lose jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, leading to rescission of the WCJ's Findings and Award.
From the decision · page 21 Labor Code section 139.5,2 effective January 1, 2009, terminated any rights to vocational
Applicant's right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance benefits was not vested through a final order or award before January 1, 2009.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Because the right was not vested before the repeal, the applicant's claim was extinguished and the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to award retroactive benefits.
From the decision · page 519 retroactive VRMA at the non-delay rate did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Provided medical evidence opining the need for vocational rehabilitation, supporting the applicant's second demand for vocational rehabilitation.
From the decision · page 39 However, the first medical evidence opining that he needed vocational rehabilitation was the June
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 139.5
Labor Code section 139.5
The repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 effective January 1, 2009, terminated rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits that were not vested before that date.
From the decision · page 21 Labor Code section 139.5,2 effective January 1, 2009, terminated any rights to vocational
Labor Code sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803
Labor Code sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803
The WCAB retains jurisdiction to enforce or terminate vested vocational rehabilitation rights under these sections.
From the decision · page 27 non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, but the WCAB continues to have
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Medical evidence from treating physician Philip A. Sobol, M.D., supporting the applicant's second demand for vocational rehabilitation.
From the decision · page 39 However, the first medical evidence opining that he needed vocational rehabilitation was the June
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.