The Blackletter › Chapter 1 · The System
§ 1.1 The Weight of En Banc Decisions
“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, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 1007 (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, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (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“Unlike en banc decisions, panel decisions are not binding precedent on other Appeals Board panels and WCJs.”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, 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 514 (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.)
“A California Compensation Cases digest of a “writ denied” case is also not binding precedent.”
(Dennis v. State of California (2020) ADJ9346293, 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 389 (Appeals Bd. en banc), at p. 8, fn. 11, citing MacDonald v. Western Asbestos Co. (1982) 47 Cal.Comp.Cases 365, 366 (Appeals Bd. en banc).)
“After granting reconsideration, because of the important legal issue presented, and in order to secure uniformity of decision in the future, the Chairman of the Board, upon a majority vote of its members, has reassigned this case to the board as a whole for an en banc decision. (Lab. Code, §115.)”
(Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) SRO 0088351, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 289 (Appeals Bd. en banc) [Coldiron I] [the 2002 formulation: majority vote; the modern practice recites a unanimous vote — compare the Gaines quotation above], at p. 2.)
“The Board’s en banc decision are binding precedent on all Board panels and WCJs. (WCAB/DWC Policy & Procedure Manual, Index No. 6.16.1.)”
(Coldiron I, supra, fn. 2 [“decision are” so in original], citing WCAB/DWC Policy & Procedure Manual, Index No. 6.16.1 — the pre-Rule 10325 source of the binding rule, at p. 2.)
“The Board's en banc decisions under Labor Code section 115 are binding precedent on all Board panels and WCJs. (Gee v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn.6 [67 Cal. Comp. Cases 236, 239, fn. 6; WCAB/DWC Policy & Procedure Manual, Index No. 6.16.1.)”
(Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) SRO 0088351, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1466 (Appeals Bd. en banc) [Coldiron II], fn. 1 — eight months after Coldiron I, the binding rule now rests on § 115 and Gee; the unclosed bracket is the original’s, at p. 2.)
Cross-references: §§ 1.2–1.5, 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.