What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
applicant seeks reconsideration of the September 6, 2022 Joint Findings of Fact denying payment for expired Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit vouchers.
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 vouchers expired two years after issuance on July 17, 2019, and unused funds were returned after expiration, so no reimbursement was allowed.
From the decision · page 2The two vouchers here at issue for injuries dated January 29, 2007 and March 3, 2007 were issued on July 17, 2017. (Joint Findings of Fact; Defendant's Exhibit B, Letter from Albertson's attaching two vouchers.) Per section 4658.5(d), these two vouchers expired on July 17, 2019.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The two vouchers were issued on July 17, 2017 and expired two years later on July 17, 2019.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The expiration date barred reimbursement of unused funds returned after expiration.
From the decision · page 2The two vouchers here at issue for injuries dated January 29, 2007 and March 3, 2007 were issued on July 17, 2017. (Joint Findings of Fact; Defendant's Exhibit B, Letter from Albertson's attaching two vouchers.) Per section 4658.5(d), these two vouchers expired on July 17, 2019.
Applicant signed the vouchers in October 2018 and payment was delayed until June 2019.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Even with tolling for delay, the vouchers expired before unused funds were returned.
Unused voucher funds were returned to the carrier at the end of 2020 after expiration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
No reimbursement allowed for expenses not incurred and submitted before expiration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations section 10116.9
Defines voucher expiration rules.
From the decision · page 12Based upon the issuance of the vouchers on July 17, 2017, it was determined that the vouchers expired on July 17, 2019. Defendant's liability for the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit expired after two years (July 17, 2019) as set forth in California Code of Regulations section 10133.60 and as defined in California Code of Regulations section 10116.9.
California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations section 10133.31
No authority to extend or suspend voucher expiration dates.
From the decision · page 12Based upon the determination that the vouchers expired prior to Applicant's request for payment for additional training, thus leaving an unused portion of the vouchers, there was no authority to suspend and/or extend the two year or five-year expiration date as set forth in California Code of Regulations section 10133.31. California Code of Regulations section 10133.31 specifically states that:
California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations section 10133.60
Defines two-year expiration period for vouchers.
From the decision · page 12Based upon the issuance of the vouchers on July 17, 2017, it was determined that the vouchers expired on July 17, 2019. Defendant's liability for the Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit expired after two years (July 17, 2019) as set forth in California Code of Regulations section 10133.60 and as defined in California Code of Regulations section 10116.9.
California Labor Code
Labor Code section 4658.5
Prohibits payment or reimbursement of unused funds after voucher expiration.
From the decision · page 1Section 4658.5(d) provides that a "voucher issued after January 1, 2013, shall expire two years after the date the voucher is furnished to the employee or five years after the date of the injury, whichever is later." (§ 4658.5(d).) "The employee shall not be entitled to payment or
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant's testimony about signing the vouchers and delays in payment.
Testimony of Vanessa Londo about unused funds returned to the carrier.
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.