Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, Bishop,
Oakland, Sacramento, Salinas, San Jose,
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara
RTW Form Not a Basis to Deny Voucher
By Claire Meredith
As you know, Labor Code Section 4658.7(h)(2), requires the Physician’s Return-to-Work (Physician’s RTW) (DWC-AD 10133.36 to fully inform “the employer of work capacities and of activity restrictions resulting from the injury that are relevant to potential regular work, modified work, or alternative work.” The purpose of the form is to aid the employer in understanding the applicant’s work capacities in order to make an informed decision. But can an employer deny the voucher on the basis they did not receive this form? One court said no.
Recently, in the panel decision Fndkyan v. Opus One Labs, 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS, the WCAB held the applicant was not precluded from the voucher based on the fact the Physician’s RTW form was not sent to or received by defendant. Here, the QME report clearly provided the information that would have been included in the Physician’s RTW form. Based upon this, the WCAB believed defendant could deduce the applicant’s work capacities and restrictions. The WCAB stated “to conclude otherwise would place form over substance.”
Thus, if you receive a QME report that indicates the applicant is permanent and stationary, is industrially permanently disabled and provides work capacities and restrictions as a result of the industrial injury, it may be in your best financial interest to determine whether regular, modified, or alternative work is available. If you cannot determine whether a position fits within their restrictions, take necessary actions to obtain the Physician’s RTW form. If a position is not available, you may issue the voucher and not wait for the Physician’s RTW from.
It is important to note this was a panel decision and thus not binding. You can still fight the voucher issue and require the Physician’s RTW form. However, parties can cite this decision in order to indicate contemporaneous interpretation and application of workers’ compensation laws. Carefully review your QME report and if you have all the information you need to make an informed decision, I would recommend issuing the voucher, even if you have not received the Physician’s RTW form.
• Senate Bill 542 Seeks to Expand Coverage For Certain Firefighting Personnel and Peace Officers
• RTW Form Not a Basis to Deny Voucher
• The Intoxication Defense is Not Always Affirmative
• King Decision and Exclusive Remedy Rule
• Medical Providers Using New Tactic to Challenge Past Bills
• Risk Factors and Apportionment City of Pealuma (Lindh) v. WCAB
• Dynamex Does Not Actually Apply to Workers’ Compensation… or Does It?
• How and Why to Establish the Validity of a Medical Provider Network at Trial
• Attorney Client Privilege & Work Product Doctrine
• The Demise of Vocational Rehabilitation Reports Post 01-01-2013
• Is The Combined Values Chart Rebuttable?
• Panel Dispute Strategy
• Changes To Utilization Review And Independent Medical Review as of 1-1-18
• Labor Code §4903.8(b) - Lien Litigation
• Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
• City of Jackson v. WCAB (Rice)
• Jaime Simmons v. Just Wingin’ It, Inc.
• Maxham v. SCIF
• Senate Bill 11/60/Lien Anti-Fraud Provisions and Utilization Review Changes
• Penalties Assessed Under Labor Code Section 5814
• New California Law Establishes Shared Liability Between Employer & Labor Contractor
• Rulings Concerning Medical Treatment Disputes
• Cannon Appellate Decision and The Cannon Ball Effect It Will Have
• The Beginning and Ending of Temporary Disability
• Medical Provider Network Changes
• New Lien Regulations
• Y&R Prevails Against Lien Claimants
• Want to know what the applicant is really up to?
• New En banc decision from WCAB allows Defendant's more Discovery
• A First-Year Associate's Perspective on Workers' Compensation in California
• An Alternative Strategy for Protection against Illegitimate Treating Practices
• TTD & PD Rates for Seasonal Employees
• Labor Code 4658(d)(3)(A)
• Y&R Obtains Take-Nothing from WCAB