Martino

We review the order of respondent Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration. While a petition to terminate an employee’s vocational rehabilitation (VR) services was pending before the rehabilitation unit (RU), employee petitioned to reopen with the WCAB within five years of her injury for new and further disability. She also requested VR be reinstated. While the petition to reopen was pending, VR services were terminated by the RU. Thereafter the petition to reopen was granted by the WCAB. Here we conclude the employee’s petition for reinstatement of VR is not barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse.

Facts

Petitioner Brenda Martino sustained an admitted industrial back injury on April 10, 1995. On June 1, 1995, Martino wrote her employer’s insurer, Superior National Insurance Company (Superior), 1 requesting VR benefits. Superior agreed, and the parties selected a rehabilitation consultant. Martino’s injury prevented her from participating in the program, and she requested that rehabilitation services be interrupted or deferred. 2 The parties agreed to a one-month extension, from July 1, 1996, to July 30, 1996. Martino timely requested…

Dissenting.—I agree that we should (1) construe limitations provisions in workers’ compensation law liberally in favor of an injured worker (maj. opn., ante, at p. 489), (2) not elevate form over substance or insist on a strict chronological sequence in the filing of documents by an applicant (maj. opn., ante, at p. 490), and (3) liberally view the workers’ compensation laws in favor of affording substantial justice to injured workers (maj. opn., ante, at p. 491). Constitutional, statutory, and decisional law dictates that these laudatory goals be furthered. However, there must, of necessity, come a time when the rules dictate that the employer and its insurance carrier no longer have liability. The rules, whether they favor the employee or the employer in any given instance, allow the parties some assurance and repose in their respective rights and liabilities. Here, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) and the workers’ compensation appeals board (WCAB) have determined that applicant is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits because she did not timely or appropriately perfect her request therefor. This case is not one where the employer, its carrier, the WCJ, and the…

We review the order of respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration. While a petition to terminate an employee's vocational rehabilitation (VR) services was pending before the rehabilitation unit (RU), employee petitioned to reopen with the WCAB within five years of her injury for new and further disability. She also requested VR be reinstated. While the petition to reopen was pending, VR services were terminated by the RU. Thereafter the petition to reopen was granted by the WCAB. Here we conclude the employee's petition for reinstatement of VR is not barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse.

FACTS

Petitioner Brenda Martino sustained an admitted industrial back injury on April 10, 1995. On June 1, 1995, Martino wrote her employer's insurer, Superior National Insurance Company (Superior), [1] requesting VR benefits. Superior agreed, and the parties selected a rehabilitation consultant. Martino's injury prevented her from participating in the program, and she requested that rehabilitation services be interrupted or deferred. [2] The parties agreed to a one-month extension, from July 1, 1996, to July 30, 1996. Martino timely…