Case Name:	Save Mart STores vs. WCAB (Gwin)		02/14/1992
Summary:	SAVE MART STORES, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and JULIE GWIN, Respondents. However, Save Mart contends that the decision of the Board that Gwin was therefore a qualified injured worker is not supported by substantial [3 Cal. App. 4th 724] evidence. Save Mart argues that there was no medical evidence presented to establish that Gwin was incapable of returning to work as an administrative assistant at Save Mart, so long as she was not under the supervision of Jerry Sauer. Save Mart alleges that other positions were available for Gwin within the company. In the order, it was noted that no response to the request had been received from the employer (Save Mart).
Note:	One is not a qualified injured worker merely because of an inability to coexist with other workers or supervisors, so long as an equivalent position is available at the same place of employment.
Citation:	3 CA4th 720
WCC Citation:	WCC 30281992 CA

Case Name:	Save Mart v. WCAB		01/11/2008
Summary:	Save Mart Supermarkets (Save Mart) petitions for a writ of review (Lab. A Save Mart claims adjuster advised both Young and Dr. Schroeder's staff that same day that Save Mart would not authorize payment to Dr. Schroeder because Young was required to use an employer-approved doctor during the first 30 days of her September 21, 2002, fall. Even if, as Save Mart alleges, Young's misdemeanor plea resulted from her deposition testimony as opposed to the history she provided to Dr. Allende at the FIRM, Save Mart again fails to point to any misstatement she provided to Dr. Curran. Attorney Fees Relating to Save Mart's Application for Adjudication Concluding Young had complied with Save Mart's directives, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's award of attorney fees in favor of Young arising out of Save Mart's application for adjudication. Save Mart contends section 4064, subdivision (c) is inapplicable here because Young filed an initial application for adjudication before Save Mart filed a subsequent application for adjudication disputing the recommendations of Drs.
Note:	[Unpublished] Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In the present case, the WCAB's decision was both reasonable and based on substantial evidence.
Citation:	F053535
WCC Citation:	WCC 32992008 CA

Case Name:	Scalice v. Perf. Cleaning Sys.		10/24/1996
Summary:	WILLIAM SCALICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERFORMANCE CLEANING SYSTEMS, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION DOSSEE, J. William Scalice obtained a judgment against Performance Cleaning Systems for injuries caused by a fall at work on a slippery floor which Performance had maintained. The principal issue on appeal is the appropriate method of crediting workers' compensation payments against Performance's liability to Scalice under Proposition 51 (Civ. Performance answered the complaint, and affirmatively alleged negligence by Scalice and his employer, Safeway, and requested a credit against the verdict for sums Scalice had received as workers' compensation benefits. Scalice was found to be 0 percent [50 Cal. App. 4th 225] negligent, Safeway was 30 percent negligent, and Performance was 70 percent negligent.
Note:	Defining 'serious and willful misconduct.'
Citation:	50 Cal.App.4th 221
WCC Citation:	WCC 23981996 CA

Case Name:	Scalice v. Performance Cleaning Systems		01/01/2001
Summary:	WILLIAM SCALICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PERFORMANCE CLEANING SYSTEMS, Defendant and Respondent. OPINION DOSSEE, J. William Scalice obtained a judgment against Performance Cleaning Systems for injuries caused by a fall at work on a slippery floor which Performance had maintained. Performance answered the complaint, and affirmatively alleged negligence by Scalice and his employer, Safeway, and requested a credit against the verdict for sums Scalice had received as workers' compensation benefits. Scalice was found to be 0 percent [50 Cal. App. 4th 225] negligent, Safeway was 30 percent negligent, and Performance was 70 percent negligent. The parties were given the opportunity to address the appropriate method of allocating the credit to Performance for workers' compensation payments received by Scalice.
Note:	Defining
Citation:	50 Cal.App.4th 221
WCC Citation:	WCC 24002001 CA

Case Name:	Scharf v. Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley et al.		02/04/2013
Summary:	SCHARF v. CALVARY CHAPEL OF TEMECULA VALLEY DENNIS SCHARF et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALVARY CHAPEL OF TEMECULA VALLEY et al. , Defendants and Respondents. Daley & Heft, Lee H. Roistacher and Mitchell D. Dean for Defendants and Respondents Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley and Gary H. Nelson. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Dennis Scharf sued defendants and respondents Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley (Calvary), Donald Coop,*fn1 and Gary Nelson for damages after he was injured while performing work at Calvary. While Scharf was not a member of Calvary, he attended services on a weekly basis up to the time of the incident. Scharf v. Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley et al. , E051885] RICHLI, J. , Concurring and Dissenting.
Note:	A parishioner who injured himself while performing construction work for his church can sue the church and its pastor in tort.
Citation:	E051885
WCC Citation:	WCC 39822013 CA

Case Name:	Schechter v. Nissanoff		02/20/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE HOLLINS SCHECHTER, APC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JONATHAN NISSANOFF et al. , Defendants and Respondents. *fn1 Hollins represented Jonathan Nissanoff, M. D. , and San Diego Advanced Orthopedic Center (collectively Nissanoff) "in the case [entitled] Nissanoff v. Arruda, et al. ; Arruda v. Nissanoff, et al" (the Arruda matter) from "approximately 2004 to 2006. "Nissanoff apparently failed to pay Hollins for its services and, in August 2006, Hollins filed a complaint against Nissanoff to recover unpaid legal fees. Day Eisenberg contended disqualification was unnecessary because Eisenberg did not act as counsel for Nissanoff while he worked at Hollins and because there was no similarity between the Arruda matter and Hollins's attempt to recover legal fees from Nissanoff. Hollins also submitted the declaration of a woman who stated she and Eisenberg had dinner with Nissanoff in 2004 where it was her "recollection that legal issues involving Nissanoff were discussed .
Note:	[Unpublished] Eisenberg demonstrated, and the trial court found, he was not exposed to confidential information when he worked at Hollins. Accordingly, the denial of Hollins's motion to disqualify would have been proper under the modified substantial relationship test, which presumes access to confidential information.
Citation:	G038436
WCC Citation:	WCC 33202008 CA

Case Name:	Scheffield Med. Grp., Inc. v. WCAB		03/15/1999
Summary:	SCHEFFIELD MEDICAL GROUP, INC. , Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Respondents. Dr. Michael Wai-Pui Lam, owner of the three medical groups and licensed radiologist, testified on behalf of Scheffield. Scheffield petitioned for reconsideration, raising arguments reiterated in its petition for review and discussed in detail, post. [1] Scheffield first contends that the Board erred in applying the 1993 version of section 4628 when services were rendered in 1991 and 1992. Scheffield contends that the decision in Scheffield v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Findings of WCAB on questions of fact are conclusive/not subject to review if supported by substant. evidence.
Citation:	70 Cal.App.4th 868
WCC Citation:	WCC 27111999 CA

Case Name:	Scheftner v. Rio Linda School District		10/04/2004
Summary:	Note: This opinion was overruled by Rio Linda Union School Dist. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA JANELLE SCHEFTNER, Applicant, vs. RIO LINDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants. On July 19, 2004, the Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Rio Linda Union Elementary (defendant). He recommends that the matter be returned to him for this purpose only, but otherwise deny all other counts raised by defendant. "Existing order, decision or award" includes orders of closure of discovery at mandatory settlement conferences and orders of submission for decision.
Note:	Submission orders and orders closing discovery that issued prior to the enactment of SB 899 are
Citation:	69 CCC 1281
WCC Citation:	WCC 31092004 CA

Case Name:	Scheftner vs. Rio Linda School District		10/04/2004
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. SAC 0326274 JANELLE SCHEFTNER, Applicant, vs. RIO LINDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendants. At trial on February 18, 2004, permanent disability and apportionment were listed as issues, among other issues, and applicant testified. On July 19, 2004, the Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration filed by Rio Linda Union Elementary (defendant). "Existing order, decision or award" includes orders of closure of discovery at mandatory settlement conferences and orders of submission for decision. Appeals Bd. , supra, 5 Cal. 4th at p. 387 [58 Cal. Comp. Cases at p. 289]; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Workers' Comp.
Note:	Submission orders and orders closing discovery, that issued prior to the enactment of SB 899 on April 19, 2004, are 'existing' orders that cannot be reopened due to the prohibition set forth in Section 47.
Citation:	68 CCC 1281; En Banc
WCC Citation:	WCC 30312004 CA

Case Name:	Schermerhorn v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.		09/19/2008
Summary:	Filed 9/19/08 Schermerhorn v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE ROBERT SCHERMERHORN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found that LAUSD failed to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with plaintiff Robert Schermerhorn, an LAUSD employee with a physical disability, as required by Government Code section 12940, subdivision (n). Fischer told Schermerhorn that the decision on returning him to work was Dr. Bierer's to make, and he told Schermerhorn to meet again with Dr. Bierer, which Schermerhorn did. In January 2003, Schermerhorn again contacted Fischer, who said that he was waiting for Dr. Bierer to release Schermerhorn for work.
Note:	[Unpublished] LAUSD had notice of (1) Schermerhorn's medical release to return to work, (2) his desire to return to work, and (3) his disability, as expressed in the listed work restrictions. Nothing more was required to trigger LAUSD's duty to offer a reasonable accommodation.
Citation:	B196937
WCC Citation:	WCC 34272008 CA

Case Name:	Schlick v. Comco Mgt., Inc.		12/04/1987
Summary:	GREGORY SCHLICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMCO MANAGEMENT, INC. , Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Taylor, J. , with Sonenshine, Acting P. J. , and Crosby, J. , concurring. )I Gregory Schlick appeals a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to his complaint without leave to amend. As a result of his employment, Schlick suffered many industrial injuries for which he filed claims with the board. While his claims before the board were pending, Schlick instituted this action against Comco Management, Inc. , the independent claims administrator for the City of Anaheim. Each count was based on Comco's alleged failure to pay Schlick workers' compensation benefits.
Note:	WCAB has broad jurisdiction over rights, liabilities arising out of compensation.
Citation:	196 Cal.App.3d 974
WCC Citation:	WCC 24271987 CA

Case Name:	Scholar v. City of Chico		12/27/2011
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA GARY SCHOLAR, Applicant, vs. CITY OF CHICO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant. Applicant was a Division Chief in the Chico Fire Department, a position he held for over 20 years until his retirement in 2004. Applicant testified at trial that, at some point in 2004, he noticed a lump on the side of his neck. As applicant testified at trial regarding the results of the first fine needle biopsy, "They - they just said they couldn't tell. Dr. Heithecker referred the applicant to another otolaryngologist, James P. Lacey, M. D. Dr. Lacey performed the guided needle biopsy.
Note:	A city of Chico firefighter's cancer claim was timely because his physicians never definitively informed him that he had neck cancer until 2008.
Citation:	ADJ402198
WCC Citation:	WCC 38442011 CA

Case Name:	Schreifer v. Industrial Accident Comm'n		05/05/1964
Summary:	SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA L. A. No. 27656 May 5, 1964 DAVID D. SCHREIFER, PETITIONER, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. , RESPONDENTS PROCEEDING to review an order of the Industrial Accident Commission denying compensation for personal injuries. Peters [61 Cal2d Page 290] Applicant David Schreifer sought compensation from his employer, the County of Los Angeles, and its insurer, State Compensation Insurance Fund, for injuries suffered by him as a result of an automobile accident. The referee of the commission found that the accident arose out of the course and scope of the employment. While en route he was involved in an automobile accident in which he sustained the injuries here involved. He had not requested compensation for the use of his car on the date of the accident here involved.
Note:	Special mission involves employer requiring something extraordinary in relation to employee's normal duties.
Citation:	61 Cal. 2d 289
WCC Citation:	WCC 30381964 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. IAC (Aten)		02/01/1949
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND et al. , Petitioners, v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, MYLES J. ATEN et al. , Respondents. State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioner herein, was the insurance carrier of the petitioner D. D. Dunlap, who was the employer of respondent Myles J. Aten. Thereafter the employee applied for adjustment of compensation, and on October 22, 1947, a hearing was had thereon. On October 24, 1947, the insurance carrier paid the employee $100 and on November 24, 1947, the remaining $125. Although the last hearing was held on October 22, 1947, the findings and award were not filed until January 26, 1948.
Note:	Award annulled b/c attorney's fees already paid in full to employee.
Citation:	89 Cal.App.2d 821
WCC Citation:	WCC 26701949 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. IAC (George)		05/17/1954
Summary:	Petition for writ of review and annulment of portion of findings and order on apportionment. May the commission, on rehearing, after reviewing the record, make findings and order differing from its first findings and order, where no additional evidence is introduced?Petitioner State Compensation Insurance Fund and other compensation insurance carriers were subsequently joined as defendants. The period of employment at Empire Foundry he found to be 501 weeks instead of the 328 weeks previously found. We do not suggest a solution, but shall leave it to the Commission to settle the problem. '
Note:	IAC, on rehearing, can change its prev. findings and order without further evidence, though no party complained of any finding.
Citation:	125 Cal.App.2d 201
WCC Citation:	WCC 26951954 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. Sup. Crt. of LA County		08/24/2001
Summary:	STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. Code, § 956) overrides any attorney-client privilege and the State Fund does not have standing to assert any privilege. State Fund specifically argued that the District Attorney had to make a prima facie showing of the crime/fraud exception (Evid. Code, § 956) to overcome the attorney-client privilege and could not rely on the sealed affidavit used to obtain the search warrant. The trial court reconsidered its prior ruling and stated: 'I realize that I do have a right to exercise .
Note:	Employer cannot waive carrier's privilege; court must grant review if colorable claim made.
Citation:	91 Cal. App. 4th 1080
WCC Citation:	WCC 28122001 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. Superior Court of San Francisco		02/23/2010
Summary:	Filed 2/23/10 Ordered published by Supreme Court 5/20/10 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; ONVOI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. , Real Party in Interest. The Fund contends the superior court erred by granting a motion for summary adjudication directed to a superseded pleading, and it seeks a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the superior court to set aside its order. Respondent superior court heard Onvoi's motion for summary adjudication on June 23, 2009. Two days after the superior court announced its ruling, Onvoi filed its answer to the Fund's amended complaint. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. CGC07470352, Charlotte W. Woolard, Judge.
Note:	The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.
Citation:	A125834
WCC Citation:	WCC 36262010 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB		03/28/2012
Summary:	We therefore annul the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and remand with instructions to deny Garcia's claim for psychiatric injury. SCIF petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, contending that Garcia's injury was not the result of an extraordinary employment condition, but rather an ordinary occupational hazard of picking fruit while standing on a ladder. Even the WCAB majority acknowledged that this is "not particularly strong evidence on extraordinariness. "SCIF did not introduce evidence that such falls are an industry hazard or that insurance costs reflect that risk, but that was not its burden. DISPOSITION The order denying reconsideration is annulled, and the matter is remanded to the WCAB with instructions to deny Garcia's claim for psychiatric injury.
Note:	A California agricultural worker was not entitled to compensation for his alleged psychiatric injuries resulting from his fall from a 24-foot ladder.
Citation:	B235258
WCC Citation:	WCC 38802012 CA

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Adame)		11/01/1983
Summary:	Richard W. Younkin, William B. Donohoe, Alvin R. Barrett, Banks, Leviton, Kelley, Drass & Kelsey and Mary Carol Scherb for Respondents. State Compensation Insurance Fund, the employer's workers' compensation carrier, petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for reconsideration. There, the WCAB failed to specify reasons for disapproval of a posttrial compromise and release. Here, the WCAB did not generate a record in order to support its disapproval of the settlement of rehabilitation benefits. The matter is remanded to the WCAB for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Note:	Pre-trial C&R valid if record is sufficient for 'Thomas Finding'.
Citation:	148 Cal.App.3d 649
WCC Citation:	WCC 27451983 CA

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

Case Name:	SCIF v. WCAB (Stevens)		01/08/2017
Summary:	Click Here for a PDF version of SCIF v. WCAB (Stevens)
Note:	The California 1st District Court of Appeal has accepted an appeal by the State Compensation Insurance Fund that challenges the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's authority to void provisions of the state’s medical treatment guidelines that conflict with other areas of the law.
Citation:	ADJ1526353
WCC Citation:	Decisions after remittitur from A143043