Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Asher)		11/04/1993
Summary:	State Compensation Insurance Fund (petitioner) concedes Justin was a minor totally dependent upon decedent at the time of decedent's death. On December 13, 1990, widow and Justin filed an application for adjudication of claim, seeking death and other benefits. (1950) 98 Cal. App. 2d 741 [220 P. 2d 765], the court construed the term 'dependent minor children' to include dependent minor grandchildren. There is nothing in the language of section 4703. 5 or its legislative history that suggests a contrary legislative intent. Accordingly, Justin is a 'dependent minor child' within the meaning of section 4703. 5 and is entitled to a death benefit thereunder.
Note:	Grandchild is a 'dependent minor child' within the meaning of section 4703.5 and is entitled to a death benefit thereunder.
Citation:	19 Cal.App.4th 1645
WCC Citation:	WCC 25951993 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Chacon)		08/28/1998
Summary:	In addition to other listed payments, SCIF was to pay $400,000 within 25 days of the order approving the C&R, which would include interest. SCIF also agreed to guarantee the payments but its obligation was to be discharged upon the mailing of a valid check for the correct amount. SCIF then purchased an annuity from Keyport Life Insurance Company (Keyport) and so advised Chacon. [66 Cal. App. 4th 1158] Chacon then advised SCIF by letter the payments were not in compliance with sections 4651 fn. SCIF also adds that the WCAB failed to explain according to section 5908. 5 fn.
Note:	Annuity checks not immediately negotiable and payable in cash are not unreasonably delayed payments.
Citation:	66 Cal.App.4th 1154
WCC Citation:	WCC 24791998 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Denton)		05/24/1982
Summary:	With the addition of this evidence, the record discloses the Board's order denying reconsideration is not supported by substantial evidence. The Fund has challenged the award on the grounds there is no substantial evidence to sustain it. We are obligated in this instance to review 'the entire record which shall be certified by the appeals board. . . ' (Lab. The 'record of proceedings' includes exhibits marked but not received in evidence, 'notices, petitions, briefs, findings, orders, decisions and awards. 'The evidence is clearly part of the record certified by the Board, and is properly before us on this appeal.
Note:	Board must consider 'new' evidence if strong and failure to produce earlier is 'clearly excusable'.
Citation:	47 CCC 601
WCC Citation:	WCC 27301982 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Dorsett)		11/10/2011
Summary:	Both employers were insured for purposes of workers' compensation by petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). "*fn1 SCIF filed separate petitions for reconsideration on behalf of South Valley and A-Tek. SCIF filed separate petitions for reconsideration on behalf of South Valley Glass and A-Tek. On behalf of A-Tek, SCIF contended that "[a] cumulative trauma injury cannot be both a compensable consequence of an earlier injury and a second injury as well. DISCUSSION In this court, SCIF contends that the Board erred when "it determined apportionment of permanent disability did not apply" in this case.
Note:	A workers' compensation judge erroneously failed to apportion an injured worker's award pursuant to Benson v. WCAB, California's 6th District Court of Appeal concluded.
Citation:	H036724
WCC Citation:	WCC 38242011 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Hancock)		11/22/2010
Summary:	State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) unsuccessfully petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB or Board) for reconsideration of the WCJ's findings and orders. We issued a writ of review in this case to consider whether the WCAB properly denied SCIF's petition for reconsideration. "The general clause relied upon by [SCIF] is at best oblique and only alludes to the issue waiver. "SCIF argues the WCAB therefore erred in rejecting the stipulation by reopening Hancock's award. The WCAB in this case relied on section 5803 as an alternative basis for permitting the reopening of Hancock's case.
Note:	The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board should not have granted an applicant's petition to reopen an award for an injury that he allegedly knew about before agreeing to a settlement, the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled.
Citation:	C064985
WCC Citation:	WCC 36832010 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Meier)		10/17/1985
Summary:	Meier submitted a bid on a sheet from a Pacific Structural Concrete scratch pad for $9,493, and the bid was accepted. While working on the remodeling job, Meier fell from a scaffold sustaining a broken neck which rendered him a quadriplegic. 3 Applicability of Section 2750. 5 Three Court of Appeal cases have concluded that the penultimate paragraph of section 2750. 5 is applicable in workers' compensation cases. [1] We have concluded that section 2750. 5, including the penultimate paragraph, must be interpreted as applying to workers' compensation cases. In any event the documents are not helpful in determining the effect of the last two paragraphs of the section.
Note:	LC 2750.5 in fact applies to work comp cases; Unlicensed contractor not estopped from asserting employment status.
Citation:	40 Cal.3d 5
WCC Citation:	WCC 3851985 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Patterson)		05/19/1981
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and ROBERT J. PATTERSON, Respondents. COUNSEL: For petitioner--Vonk, Krimen & Evans, by Frank Evans For respondent employee--Jones, Brown & Clifford, by Yale I. Jones OPINION BY: Caldecott, P. J. 649], and later claimed an additional penalty for failure of defendants to reimburse him for self-procured medical treatment. Reconsideration was granted to consider the impact of the pending case of Gallamore v. Workers' Comp. The result was the same--a 10 percent penalty was imposed upon the full amount of the permanent disability award.
Note:	Attorney fee commuted from disability benefits is subject to separate penalty for delayed payment.
Citation:	46 CCC 552
WCC Citation:	WCC 25171981 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Sandhagen)		07/16/2009
Summary:	The WCAB asserts, as a threshold matter, that its decision is not a final order and the petition for review is premature. Instead, the WCAB gave Fund a reasonable opportunity to obtain a section 4062, subdivision (a) evaluation to assess the reasonableness and necessity of treatment. *fn6 II RIPENESS The WCAB argues its November 16, 2004, decision is not a final order subject to a petition for writ of review. Therefore, the WCAB concludes, the order cannot be considered final since it failed to determine any substantive right or liability. DISPOSITION The WCAB's decision is annulled, and the matter is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	[Unpublished] Utilization review process is mandatory and SCIF cannot resort to proceedings under 4062 as a method for disputing injured worker's treatment request.
Citation:	C048668
WCC Citation:	WCC 35432009 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Sandhagen)		07/03/2008
Summary:	State Fund sought reconsideration by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Due to the important legal issues presented and in order to secure uniformity of future decisions, the matter was assigned to the WCAB as a whole for an en banc decision. *fn4 Accordingly, the WCAB vacated the workers' compensation judge's determination that Sandhagen was entitled to the MRI and instead gave State Fund an opportunity to proceed under section 4062. A. Statutory Scheme Requires Employers to Conduct Utilization Review When Resolving Requests for Medical Treatment Section 4610 requires that "[e]very employer . If the hearing failed to satisfy the parties, theycould seek reconsideration by the WCAB (§ 5900) and, ultimately, review by the Court of Appeal (§ 5950).
Note:	The Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and not to permit employers to use section 4062 to dispute employees' treatment requests. The language of section 4610 and 4062 mandates this result.
Citation:	S149257
WCC Citation:	WCC 33912008 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Slotten)		01/04/1979
Summary:	Injured workers in need of rehabilitation had to seek aid outside the workers' compensation system through state and federally funded programs. Responding to the recommendation of the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws, the Legislature amended section 139. 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 1975) to make vocational rehabilitation at the expense of employers or their carriers a matter of right for qualified injured workers. The Attorney General rendered an opinion in 1975 that section 139. 5, as amended in 1974, applies only to employees in the private sector. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has likewise decided in this case that section 139. 5 covers both public and private employees.
Note:	Mandatory duty on public employers to provide employees with same rehab. benefits as private employees.
Citation:	88 Cal.App.3d 43
WCC Citation:	WCC 26391979 CA