Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Aldi: The 2005 Rating Schedule Applied Unless a Statutory Exception Was Proved

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 27, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Aldi v. Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn, No. SFO 0485703 (WCAB June 21, 2006) (en banc).

An injury before 2005 did not, by itself, guarantee use of the older permanent-disability rating schedule. Aldi required a second inquiry: Did the record establish one of the exceptions in the transition statute? The Board returned the case for that factual determination rather than choosing the worker’s final disability rating.

The injury predated the revised schedule

Elizabeth Aldi, a legal secretary, sustained a cumulative injury to her neck and upper extremities over a period ending November 18, 2002. The parties submitted only which rating schedule applied and deferred the other issues. The judge concluded that every pre-2005 injury remained under the former schedule; the employer challenged that interpretation. Aldi, pages 1–3.

The revised schedule was the default

The Board read the transition language of section 4660(d) as an exception to the usual prospective application of a revised schedule. For pending claims involving pre-2005 injuries, the 2005 schedule applied unless a listed exception was established. Reading only the statute’s general prospective language would erase the separate provision addressing those earlier claims. Aldi, pages 8–11.

Exceptions required factual development

The listed exceptions concerned qualifying medical reporting before 2005 or a required section 4061 notice. Aldi argued that the employer’s initial temporary-disability payment in November 2003 triggered the notice exception. The employer disputed that any exception existed. Because that issue had not been tried, the Board sent it back rather than resolving it from the parties’ competing assertions. Aldi, pages 3, 12.

The opinion expressly reserved when and how the exceptions operated. A later decision, Pendergrass, addressed the notice trigger and rejected use of the first temporary-disability payment; its April 2007 majority focused on the last payment. That later question is distinct from Aldi’s threshold rule. Do not treat a pre-2005 payment entry as proof that Aldi itself found the exception satisfied. Aldi, page 9, note 5; Pendergrass, April 6, 2007 decision, pages 6–9.

Disposition

The Board rescinded the judge’s contrary determination, substituted the default-and-exception framework and returned the matter for further proceedings. It did not decide a final permanent-disability percentage or announce that Aldi had proved the notice exception. Aldi, pages 12–14.

This analysis concerns the historical transition for a pending older claim. For injuries on or after January 1, 2013, section 4660.1 supplies a different statutory framework. A current file should be classified by the injury date and governing law before anyone selects an old schedule simply because it produces a preferred result.

Key takeaways

• Start with the injury date and statutory default.
• Identify the exact exception claimed.
• Locate pre-2005 medical reports and benefit notices.
• Read Aldi with later transition decisions.