By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The existence of an employment relationship is the lynchpin of workers’...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board For readers who may not be familiar with the Workers’ Compensation...
The U.S. Department of Labor has issued new data showing California's State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) edged down 0.48 percent from $1,650 to $1,642 in the 12 months ending March 31, 2023. As a result...
CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 88, No. 11 November 2023 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions...
By Hon. Susan V. Hamilton, Former Assistant Secretary and Deputy Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Nearly two decades ago Senate Bill 899 was enacted and ushered in a...
Pascacio v. Jacobo Farm Services, 2022 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS --, contains an excellent discussion about new and further disability and filing a timely petition to reopen. Here’s our headnote for the panel decision:
Petition to Reopen—Five-Year Statute of Limitations—WCAB, granting reconsideration, rescinded WCJ’s decision that applicant laborer’s claim of new and further disability did not arise within five years from date of injury and remanded matter to trial level for further development of record, when applicant, on 1/5/2016, filed Petition to Reopen his 1/5/2015 Stipulated Award of 17 percent permanent disability for 5/25/2012 low back injury, alleging his condition had worsened, and although no new temporary or permanent disability was found, applicant was referred for surgery, and WCAB reasoned that requisite showing to support assertion of new and further disability is not limited to temporary or permanent disability, but can also include evidence of changes in employee’s medical condition and/or treatment regimen, that in this case there was new need for medical treatment that arose within five years from date of injury based on applicant’s need for surgery, and that though applicant raised timely, colorable assertion of demonstrable change in condition, including new need for medical treatment occurring within five years from date of injury, record required further development regarding whether surgical intervention was medically necessary and whether applicant was willing to undergo recommended surgery.
© Copyright 2022 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
Reminder: Panel decisions are not binding precedent.
The decision is below in PDF format.