Alrighty, dear readers, I know, I know – no one likes to walk into work on a Monday morning and be floored by such crazy news, but reports of the Supreme Court declining earlier Fitzpatrick challenges have been exaggerated, apparently.

Fitzpatrick, which was a 2018 Court of Appeal decision holding Labor Code section 4662 allows permanent total disability only through the combination of rating strings or through statutory presumptions, was a great victory for the defense.  No longer could applicants claim “well, man, you know… he’s like, pretty disabled, so let’s do the 100% thing, ok?”  Fitzpatrick required actual rating strings to 100% or the loss of both eyes, both hands, etc., as per Labor Code section 4662.

In January or so, the Supreme Court declined efforts by applicant attorneys to de-publish the Court of Appeal decision or to reverse it.

However… SOMETHING has happened and the Supreme Court issued a new opinion, made available online late Friday night.  You can read the text here, although there does not appear to be an explanation of procedural regularities that allow the Supreme Court to make such a sweeping change.

“We find that our prior ruling may have been made in haste. After further review, there can only be one, clear interpretation of Labor Code section 4662, when read in the context of the California Constitution’s requirement to provide substantial justice in all cases expeditiously.

That is, of course, that once an injury has been accepted or proven as industrial, an injured worker is presumed to be permanently and totally disabled.  The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the effect of the injury is less than 100%.  This burden of rebuttal may be made by factual or medical evidence.”

Shockingly, the Supreme Court’s opinion appears to be unanimous.

This will certainly present opportunities to parties to challenge the constitutionality of this interpretation and the workers’ compensation system in general through arguments rooted in due process and precedent.

In the meantime, employers and insurers should take aggressive positions early on in cases to help rebut this statutory presumption of permanent total disability.  Aside from sub rosa and diligent discovery into past medical history, defendants should also careful research online for participation in any customs of yearly deception and hoaxes.

In the meantime, your humble blogger will tirelessly seek to rebut this presumption of total disability in all cases.  I trust you will join me in writing to the legislature so that the next reform package brings us back to the original Fitzpatrick holding.

Friendly reminder, dear readers, now that we’ve all had our fun and I have fielded a few e-mails and text messages cursing my name, and, in one instance, the proverbial horse upon which I rode in.  This is an April Fools’ prank by your humble blogger, trying valiantly to bring a little fun into our world of workers’ comp claims.  Until the next legislative session, at least, defendants are still afforded due process rights and applicant still carry the burden of proof as to the extent of permanent disability.