“Appeals Board en banc decisions have the same legal effect as published appellate opinions.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8, citing Signature Fruit Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ochoa) (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 790, 796, fn. 2.)
“[E]n banc decisions “are binding on panels of the Appeals Board and workers’ compensation judges as legal precedent under the principle of stare decisis.””
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8, quoting Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10325.)
“The principle of stare decisis means that precedent-setting court opinions may only be overruled by the same court, or a higher court. Hence, an Appeals Board en banc opinion must be followed by panels of the Appeals Board and by all WCJs until rescinded, altered, or overruled by the Appeals Board en banc, overruled by a Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court pursuant to sections 5950 through 5956, or rendered inapplicable by a legislative enactment.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8.)
“[E]n banc opinions of the Appeals Board are not repealed “by implication” and thus, an en banc opinion cannot be “superseded” by the enactment of a regulation.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8, citing People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 480.)
“There is simply no valid legal authority for the contention that by enacting a rule, we have superseded one of our en banc decisions by operation of law.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 13.)
“[W]e emphasize that if changes are made to an existing rule, we must follow the procedures of the rulemaking process.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 13.)
“[W]CJs and all parties before the Appeals Board must follow the plain language of the regulations as written, and, at the same time, abide by our en banc decisions. Unless otherwise stated, it is presumed that the Appeals Board is aware of the statutory and decisional law, including its own en bancs, when it enacts regulations, and the appropriate time to raise concerns about a particular rule and its impact, whether intended or unintended, is when the Appeals Board is engaged in rule making.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 13, fn. 10.)
“[A]n en banc opinion issued by the Appeals Board is binding legal precedent, unaffected by the regulatory process, and continues to be binding legal precedent unless the Appeals Board explicitly rescinds it en banc, it is overruled by a higher Court, or it is rendered no longer applicable by legislative changes.”
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8.)
“The California Supreme Court explained in People v. Bouzas that in interpreting legislation, “repeal by implication is disfavored...””
(DiFusco, supra, at p. 8, quoting People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 480.)
Cross-references: § 1.1 (weight of en banc decisions); § 16.2 (the Coldiron disclosures); § 17.1 (discovery); § 22.1 (policy provisions affecting liability).
← § 1.1 · § 1.3 → · this section in the book