Rehab Case Law Update

Saturday, September 24, 2005 | 0

by Alan Leno

Is the defendant required to file an RU-105 to terminate the applicants right to rehabilitation benefits and services when an agreed interruption extends beyond the five year statute?

In Jimmy Adams v. WCAB (2005) 70 CCC 881 (writ denied), the Board held that the defendant was not required to request termination of its liability for VR benefits and services (i.e., file an RU-105 with the Unit) where the applicant had twice been given deadlines to reinstate services (via Interruption Notices) after the five year statute.

This result is in contrast to Josephine Martinez v. WCAB (2000) 65 CCC 1253 (Reversed) which held that the defendant must file an RU-105 in order to terminate its liability for VR services, even where the five year statute has expired and the applicant has been sent a conforming Interruption Notice pursuant to CCR 9813(a)(4).

The Adams case makes more sense but the Martinez case is published and therefore may be more persuasive when arguing cases with similar fact patterns.

Another recent writ denied case, Petes Burger Shop v. WCAB (Worknhe)(2005) 70 CCC 943 (writ denied), cited the Martinez case in finding that the applicants request for VR benefits and services was timely where defendant failed to file for case closure.

Defendants may therefore wish to file an RU-105 at the conclusion of the first interruption period that expires beyond the five year statute.

Contributed by vocational rehabilitation expert Allan Leno, Leno & Associates, (818) 370-8859, allanleno@leno-assoc.com.

-------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.