Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LeBoeuf v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

California Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 1983No. S.F. 24479Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

RICHARDSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that an injured worker must appeal an adverse decision of the Rehabilitation Bureau (Bureau) before seeking to reopen a permanent disability decision. I respectfully dissent from my colleagues’ unnecessary discussion of the merits of the potential motion for reopening which might be made should petitioner’s appeal from the Bureau’s decision prove unsuccessful.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board), in denying petitioner’s request to reopen, specifically stated that any claim of inequity arising *247from the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Webb v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Shasta Convalescent Hospital v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  3. Partenheimer v. Fontainebleau HotelSupreme Court of Florida · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API