Hi All,

Mkomkom is correct in that citing a non-published decision from the appellate court is forbidden per Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115. But, a case issued as a non-published decision, per Rule 8.1115, is far different than a writ granted or writ denied appellate decision. One must keep in mind that only cases decided by the appellate courts are subject to being deemed non-published. On the other hand, any/all panel decisions can be cited.

Stew is equally correct that cases reported in the CWCR, or even panel decisions not picked up by the CWCR, can be cited as persuasive authority in a similar fact-specific case.

The panel decisions offered by WCC, mentioned by David, are invaluable. I subscribed to the WCC panel decisions as soon as they were offered, and although they are not considered 'precedent' any more than the cases cited in the CWCR, they will offer an enlightened WCJ a hook upon which to hang his/her hat when resolving a dispute.

Are panel decisions published in the CWCR precedent authority? No. Are panel decisions not published in the CWCR precedent authority? No, unless the panel decision is a WCAB en banc decision, in which case it is precedent authority for the WCJ but not the appellate justices. Are writ denied cases published in the CWCR or LexisNexis precedent authority? No.

Nevertheless, regardless of whether the decision is a panel decision that never sees the light of day in the appellate arena, or if the decision does go to the appellate court but is a writ denied decision, both carry the same weight at the WCAB level.

The last time Stew published his Index, I purchased one copy for each in-house attorney and paralegal working for my company, as well as a couple for myself. The Index is an invaluable tool, as one can search it various ways and find numerous cases addressing almost any particular issue in dispute. The cases addressing any particular subject, contained in the Index published by Stew, are grouped in such a way as to allow the reader access to cited cases both for and against almost any proposition being argued.

Thus, the Index is a great tool, but to realize the true value of the Index, one must have full access to all cases cited in order to understand the subtle nuances presented in each individual case.

I believe the seasoned practitioner should have full access to all panel decisions offered here on WCC, full access to the entire CWCR from 1973 to present, full access to all opinions offered by LexisNexis, and the seasoned practitioner should also keep a current copy of the Index offered by Stew.

I always carry a copy of Stew's Index in my briefcase.

A great example of the benefits of having access to the panel decisions published here on WCC is attached below. In the attached case, the IW sought a LC 5814 penalty due to the delay by SCIF in providing TENS supplies. A LC 5814 award issued in the amount of $37.50. The LC 5814 award was the subject of a petition for reconsideration by aggrieved defendant SCIF. The WCAB affirmed. SCIF did not seek appellate review, and to date, the CWCR has not published this case. I would never have known about this case, but for my subscription to WCC.

The value of this LC 5814 award for the whopping amount of $37.50 is priceless, as this is one of two strikes necessary to trigger a LC 5814.6 penalty investigation, which can result in a significant financial spanking. Although the DWC Audit Unit is supposed to be the recipient of any/all LC 5814 penalty awards, I have learned that few are forwarded. Well, thanks to WCC, I am furnishing a copy of each LC 5814 award to the DWC Audit Unit to ensure the compliance officers have the ammunition necessary for them to do their job.

York McGavin
ymcgavin@socal.rr.com

SCIF-SAC_ELIZONDO-TENS_SUPPLIES.pdf  (226 KB)