“En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers’ compensation administrative law judges.”
(Gaines v. ABM Aviation, Inc. (2026) ADJ20216367 et al. (Appeals Bd. en banc), fn. 1, citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10325; City of Long Beach v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 316, fn. 5; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1424, fn. 6, at p. 1.)
“This en banc decision is also adopted as a precedent decision pursuant to Government Code section 11425.60(b).”
(Gaines, supra, at p. 1, fn. 1.)
“En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers’ compensation administrative judges.”
(DiFusco v. Hands On Spa (2025) ADJ7445107 (Appeals Bd. en banc), fn. 2 [“administrative judges” so in original], citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10325; City of Long Beach v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 316, fn. 5; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1424, fn. 6; accord Gaines, supra, at p. 1, fn. 1; Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) ADJ16597333 (Appeals Bd. en banc), fn. 1; Vazquez v. Renteria (2025) ADJ11017003 (Appeals Bd. en banc), fn. 2 [citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10305(k), 10325(a)].)
“Sections 111 and 115 grant statutory authority to the Appeals Board to issue en banc decisions.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8.)
“Government Code section 11425.60(b) provides additional authority for the WCAB to designate all or part of a decision “that contains a signification legal or policy determination of general application that is likely to recur” as a “precedent decision,” and our en banc decisions are routinely adopted as precedent decisions.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8, fn. 6 [so in original].)
“Upon a unanimous vote of its members, the Appeals Board issues this decision as an en banc decision.”
(Gaines, supra, at p. 1, citing Lab. Code, § 115.)
“Unlike en banc decisions, panel decisions are not binding precedent on other Appeals Board panels and WCJs.”
(Vazquez v. Renteria (2025) ADJ11017003 (Appeals Bd. en banc), at p. 2, fn. 5, citing Gee, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425, fn. 6.)
“However, panel decisions are citeable authority and the Appeals Board may consider these decisions to the extent that their reasoning is found persuasive, particularly on issues of contemporaneous administrative construction of statutory language.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 2, fn. 5, citing Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 228, fn. 7 (Appeals Bd. en banc); Griffith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1264, fn. 2.)
“We recommend that practitioners proceed with caution when citing to a panel decision and verify its subsequent history.”
(Vazquez, supra, at p. 2, fn. 5.)
Cross-references: §§ 1.2–1.3, 16.2, 17.1, 19.1–19.6, 20.1–20.2, 21.8–21.10, 22.1, 24.6, 26.1, 26.6 (the corpus’s en banc rules). Remainder of chapter: reserved.
§ 1.2 → · this section in the book