skip to main content

Tentative significant decisions

All dockets are in Adobe Acrobat/PDF format

January 2018

Vocational services
The director of the Department, rather than the supervisor's designee, must make a final determination regarding the provision of vocational rehabilitation services after an employer disputes an initial vocational determination.
In re Stephanie R. Kalis, Dckt. No. 17 10985 (January 2, 2018)

June 2018

Total Disability/Kept on Salary
The Board affirmed a Department order denying TLC benefits because the record shows the employer kept the worker on salary at his usual salary amount during the period at issue. To determine the adequacy of salary paid to the worker, the Board looked to the wages at time of injury, which was determined in a final and binding wage-rate order.
In re Miguel A. Escorcia, Dckt. No. 17 12979 (June 4, 2018)

Affidavits of Prejudice/Transfer of PDO after Hearings
A party attempted to affidavit a judge when the chief judge transferred the file for writing a PDO. The Board held that the right of a party to affidavit a judge applied only to the judge who conducts the hearing, not to a judge who writes the PDO, a mediator, or a review judge.
In re Gail A. Gomez, Dckt. No. 17 15610 (June 7, 2018)

T1 when an OAP Backdates Claim Closure
The Department closed the claim on May 6, 2015, and affirmed the order on September 15, 2015. On appeal, the Board issued an OAP directing the Department to close the claim effective May 6, 2015. Later, the Department issued a ministerial order closing the claim without indicating the precise date of closure. The claimant appealed, asking that the claim be closed effective May 6, 2015. The Department argues that May 6, 2015, cannot be the effective date of claim closure because it adjudicated the claim through September 15, 2015. The Board held that the date the Department last adjudicated the merits of the claim was September 15, 2015.
In re Saiola S. Muasau, Dckt. No. 17 12438 (June 28, 2018)

July 2018

Segregation of Non-Existent Undiagnosed Conditions
It is improper for the Department to segregate a nonexistent undiagnosed condition from a claim. The Board clarifies that the Department did have jurisdiction to issue the order, but it was erroneous to do so.
In re Dennis D. Johnson, Dckt. No. 17 18840 (July 2, 2018)