GO to Injured Worker Forum

Thread Title: RU Jurisdiction...
Created On Wednesday September 10, 2008 3:49 PM

Senior Member

Posts: 431
Joined: Jul 2005

Wednesday September 10, 2008 3:49 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

IW has a DOI of 8/2002. Makes request for VR in 2005. All statutory notices were timely sent to IW. An RU-122 is filed settling all rehab issues and approved on 8/2007. IW claims that $11K in VRMA was still owing. Now wants RU to decide. Does the RU still have jurisdiction past the 5 years? Case was settled via C&R in 2006.

Edited: Wednesday September 10, 2008 at 3:49 PM by rosellavera


Senior Member

Posts: 1381
Joined: Jun 2002

Thursday September 11, 2008 5:37 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format


A lot more info is needed for a clear overview of the issues:

1. Did the C&R include retro VRMA in dispute to that point? The RU-122 only settles FUTURE or prospective VR, not retro.

2. As for the jurisdiction of the RU, was there any order or determination of the RU within the 5 years which became final which concluded rights to VR? Was an RU-105 filed? If so was an objection made and an RU-103 filed?

The RU will have jurisdiction to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction, but it sounds to me like they may if there was a reqest for VR in 2005 which defendant ignored and the retro VRMA clock just continued to tick until the RU-122 settled all rights from that point forward.

From a defense perspective, the C&R should have concluded all retro prior to that point, but the gap left may well be from after the C&R was approved in 2006 until the RU-122 was approved 8/2007. Normaly, more than $11k in retro would be involved, so I suspect the latter possibility is what the AA is claiming.

If so, defendant would be wise to compromise the issue if they can. If they try it and lose, there's also a claim for L.C. 4650(d) on top of the retro and if not voluntarily paid, a 25% penalty on top of that.

Good luck!

Stew (James T. Stewart) e-mail: stewshe@comcast.net
Author: Work Comp Index & Tables & Schedules in "The Labor Code Book," by LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.

7th ed. Work Comp Index (912 pgs), $119.00 ea; next ed. summer, 2010 {Discounts for orders of 12 or more}
Send check or money order & shipping info. (I cannot take credit cards.)

Prices INCLUDE sales tax, and shipping.

James T. Stewart; 1937 Santa Ana; Clovis, CA 93611

Edited: Thursday September 11, 2008 at 5:39 AM by stewshe@comcast.net


Senior Member

Posts: 639
Joined: Sep 2006

Sunday September 21, 2008 1:43 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

If rehab was requested and ignored and NOT settled in the C&R, then I don't think the statute applies at all. Remember that even on an Application, if the box was check for V.R., it is considered a "request." The fact that the RU-122 was settled a year after the C&R tells me plainly that rehab was still at issue.

I've seen many a claim accrue retro VRTD far after the C&R. As Stew said, the defense needs to shut this one down ASAP. I think there is case law, "Lewis vs. AJG" around 2003 or something like that. It's worth looking up. Additionally, look for the NOPE letter that states that the I/W "is" entitled to VR. If no NOPE, definately retro is owed; also look for notices of "interruption" to soften the blow.


PS: Stew, I didn't think that 4650 10% penalties applied to VR, as the damages are covered by paying at the TTD rate...

Edited: Monday September 22, 2008 at 8:27 AM by postscript2



FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums