Jillian DiFusco filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim in 2010, claiming injury to various body parts on July 21, 2008, while she was employed by Hands On Spa as a massage therapist.

On December 7, 2012, a WCJ awarded applicant home health care services of four hours, twice per week. Defendant was ordered to employ a nurse case manager to manage home health care services.

On July 31, 2017, a WCJ issued a Findings, Orders and Award, in which the WCJ found that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to various body parts; that the injury caused temporary total disability and temporary partial disability for various time periods between 2008 and 2012; that the injury caused permanent partial disability for additional time periods between 2009 and 2014; that the injury caused permanent total disability commencing on September 22, 2013; and that there is need for further medical treatment.

On September 21, 2018, applicant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed alleging that the home health care services that applicant had received since 2013 had been discontinued and requesting that the matter be set for expedited hearing to reinstate these services.

A number of expedited hearings took place culminating on February 17, 2021, when the parties entered into another Stipulation, approved by a WCJ, that required defendant to pay the outstanding invoices from the home health care services agency. With respect to defendant, the typed caption states “Hands On Spa; Insured by Employers Compensation Insurance Company; Administered by Employers Insurance Group.”

On the same day applicant’s attorney requested that defendant’s attorney provide coverage information on the case pursuant to former WCAB Rule 10550 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10550, now repealed) and the Coldiron cases. Coldiron v. Compuware Corp (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 289 (Appeals Board en banc) [Coldiron I]; Coldiron v. Compuware Corp. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1466 (Appeals Board en banc) [Coldiron II].

Defense attorney declined to provide detailed information stating “there is no legal authority requiring disclosure of the policy limit, the primary and the secondary excess carrier on the claim, the limits of each carrier’s policy, or any stake holder with actual or potential financial responsibility for this claim.”

A Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 19, 2022, wherein the WCJ found that in response to applicant’s discovery request, defendant was only required to comply with WCAB Rule 10390 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10390) and disclose the name of the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier.

The WCJ concluded: :This evidentiary record makes clear that the recently promulgated Regulation § 10390 not only repealed Regulation § 10550, but supercedes [sic] Coldiron. It is illogical to believe that the Appeals Board instituted Regulation § 10390 to cause a conflict in the law. The Regulation’s purpose is to simplify and clarify the obligations of defendant to identify the legally responsible entity – not create this current litigation or obfuscate a party’s disclosure obligations.”

Applicant’s petition for reconsideration was granted in the En Banc case of DiFusco v Hands On Spa, Employers-Compensation Insurance Group et.al. -2025-EB-03 (October 2025). The WCAB rescinded the WCJ’s April 19, 2022 F&O and returned this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Applicant contends that the WCJ’s conclusion that WCAB Rule 10390 only requires that a defendant disclose the name of its insurance carrier was too narrow, and that the en banc decisions by the Appeals Board in Coldiron I and II require additional disclosures, including disclosure of a high self-insured retention, a large deductible, or any other provision that affects the identity of the entity liable for compensation.

The WCAB wrote “This case involves the legal question of whether defendant was required to comply with applicant’s February 17, 2021 discovery request to defendant to identify potential insurance carriers, potential insurance policies and their limits, and other potentially liable persons or entities pursuant to the statutory discovery provisions, WCAB Rule 10390, and our en banc decisions in Coldiron I and II.”

“We answer this question in the affirmative. In light of our constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice, and our statutory mandate under Labor Code section 5500.34 to ensure uniform court procedures, we issue this decision en banc to clarify existing law and to ensure due process and consistency of practice at the trial level.”

“The California Supreme Court explained in People v. Bouzas that in interpreting legislation, “repeal by implication is disfavored…” (People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 480,” … “The same principle is applicable here: en 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. Again, we emphasize that an 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.”

“Read together, WCAB Rules 10390, 10400 and 10401 ensure that all parties, representatives and liable entities are fully identified in each case. Compliance with these rules is important to avoid errors such as misidentification of parties, inadvertent omission of parties from pleadings, and incorrect case captions.” … “The facts of the current case provide a clear example of why the Coldiron disclosure requirements are essential to accomplish our constitutional mandate to achieve substantial justice in all cases.”

Based on its review of the record, and for the reasons discussed in the Opinion, the WCAB held en banc that:

1. All en banc decisions are binding on panels of the Appeals Board and WCJs, and the binding en banc decisions in Coldiron I and Coldiron II require disclosure of any entities liable for payment and any insurance policies that impact liability for payment.
2. Only the Appeals Board is statutorily authorized to issue regulations for adjudication for workers’ compensation proceedings, and WCAB Rules 10390, 10400 and 10401 require that parties, their representatives, and their insurance companies be fully identified.
3. WCAB Rule 10390 does not supersede the Coldiron decisions. Defendants must comply with WCAB Rule 10390 and the disclosure requirements in Coldiron I and II, regardless of whether there is a third-party administrator.