(January 22, 2007) The California Chamber of Commerce has asked the 1st District Court of Appeal to publish a recent decision affecting use of the workers' compensation permanent disability schedule.
Publication of the court's decision in the State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WCAB (Echeverria), issued January 5, addresses the important question of how to determine whether the evidence in the case record supports the use of the permanent disability (PD) schedule adopted as part of the comprehensive reforms of 2004 or use of the prior PD schedule.
View Court Opinion.
Here, the court ruled that, contrary to the findings of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the record lacked substantial evidence supporting the application of the prior PD schedule instead of the schedule adopted as part of the reform legislation's changes to Labor Code Section 4660(d).
The 1st District Court of Appeal’s opinion reaffirms the requirement that in order for the prior PD schedule to apply, a patient’s medical record must contain “substantial evidence” demonstrating the existence of a permanent disability before January 1, 2005 (the date of adoption of the new PD schedule). Absent such evidence, the new schedule adopted in 2004 must apply.
Since the passage of CalChamber-supported SB 899 (Poochigian; R-Fresno) of 2004, the lower level courts have struggled with interpreting and implementing the reforms. Inconsistent decisions by these lower level courts have caused litigation rates to skyrocket. Uncertainty about how the legislation ultimately will be interpreted also is delaying resolution of many claims. The full benefit to all California citizens, both individuals and businesses, from this urgency legislation, has thus been delayed, CalChamber argued in its letter asking the court to publish the Echeverria decision.
Not every opinion of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal are published. The California Rules of Court set forth specific criteria that a case must meet to merit publication. Although unpublished opinions are binding on the parties to the lawsuit, such opinions cannot be cited or treated as persuasive authority in subsequent cases.
The CalChamber argued in its letter that the Echeverria case meets the criteria for publication. The court’s observations make a significant contribution to the development of California’s reformed workers’ compensation laws, as the opinion discusses the legislative changes and emphasizes that “substantial evidence” is required to meet the statutory exceptions under Labor Code Section 4660 as amended by SB 899. This analysis will go far to prevent inappropriate rejection of the new PD schedule.
The CalChamber believes that publication of the decision would provide clarity and guidance for other courts to follow in deciding similar cases.
View court opinion.
Staff Contact: Erika Frank