Page 1 of 1

Voucher Case Law (California)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:03 am
by mcohen@pulleycohen.com
Employer's in-house claims consultant alleges there is case law that indicates if an IW returns to his/her regular occupation, there is no entitlement to a SJDB voucher but hasn't provided citation. Is claims consultant correct? If so, what case decision supports this? Thanks.

Re: Voucher Case Law (California)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:01 am
by jpod
I don't think it is case law, it is the wording of the statute, which I believe says if the employee returns to U&C or is offerred a different job within 60 days of P&S that pays within 85% of pre-injury wage then there is no entitlement to a voucher.

Re: Voucher Case Law (California)

PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:18 am
by LawAdvocate
It is a regulation....

§ 10133.34. Offer of Work for Injuries Occurring on or After January 1, 2013.
(a) This section shall apply to all injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2013.

(b) The injured employee shall be entitled to a supplemental job displacement benefit unless the employer makes an offer of regular, modified, or alternative work on Form [DWC-AD10133.35 “Notice of Offer of Regular, Modified, or Alternative Work For injuries occurring on or after 1/1/13” no later than 60 days after receipt of Form [DWC-AD 10133.36 “Physician’s Return-to-Work & Voucher Report”] that indicates the work capacities and activity restrictions that are relevant to regular work, modified work, or alternative work.

Re: Voucher Case Law (California)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:58 pm
by 50Cal20
The employer's consultant is correct. In addition there are several little known rules pertaining to voucher entitlement. Here are three quick ones.
1. An employee is not entitled to a voucher where there is no lost time from work due to the injury.
2, No voucher entitlement if there is no PD.
3. No voucher entitlement if there is 100% PD.

Re: Voucher Case Law (California)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:02 am
by ameliastone
Friend there's to restrict of time due to the fact the premise of lien claimant is to relaxed healing suppliers while patients cannot pay their payments and don't have any clinical coverage. They don't care for tolerating the decreased sums paid by again up plans and I desire they will get well the billed quantity. PhD Dissertation Help