For context, its best to see the prior post about the WCAB’s Weiner v. Ralph’s (en banc) decision. There’s even a link to the Weiner v. Ralphs (en banc) decision for download – just so you can play along at home.
The question in the title of the post is really a question about the WCAB’s rationale – not their end legal justification behind Weiner. I believe the Weiner case hints that the WCAB is going to go the other way and uphold their rulings in Almaraz/Guzman and Ogilvie.
However, I think the WCAB’s rationale for ending vocational rehabilitation was because of the potential for enormous retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance awards at the temporary total disability rate outside the cap (VRTD).
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.