Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

DiFusco: WCAB Defendants Must Identify Every Entity Potentially Liable for Payment

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 13, 2026 · Updated October 17, 2026

Decision: Difusco v. Hands On Spa, No. ADJ7445107 (WCAB Oct. 13, 2025) (en banc).

Does the newer WCAB caption rule displace the older insurance-disclosure decisions? DiFusco says no. Rule 10390 and the two Coldiron en banc decisions work together, and the disclosure duty applies even without a third-party administrator. Naming the carrier alone did not answer a valid request for information affecting responsibility for payment.

Why the insurance information mattered

The applicant had a long-running claim involving permanent total disability and home-health-care orders. When payment problems arose, counsel requested information identifying the carrier, possible excess coverage, policy limits, and every entity potentially responsible. The defendant maintained that naming the carrier satisfied WCAB Rule 10390 and sought to distinguish the two Coldiron en banc decisions from 2002. The Board rejected that attempt. Those decisions required information about the entities and policy provisions affecting payment responsibility. DiFusco, slip opinion, pages 8–10.

The Board’s treatment of precedent

Sitting en banc, the WCAB explained that its en banc decisions bind panels and workers’ compensation judges unless the Board rescinds them, a higher court overrules them, or legislation renders them inapplicable. A later regulation does not silently erase an en banc holding. Rule 10390 therefore had to be read together with Coldiron rather than as an implied repeal.

The disclosure rule

The Board held that defendants must identify entities liable for payment and insurance provisions that affect responsibility, including arrangements such as a high self-insured retention, large deductible, or excess coverage. The duty is not limited to cases involving a third-party administrator. The burden of determining who is responsible cannot be shifted to the injured worker when the information is controlled by the defense.

The disposition

The WCAB rescinded the judge’s narrower findings and returned the case with directions to provide the requested information. It reaffirmed and clarified the existing disclosure requirements; it did not silently create a replacement rule through this case. DiFusco, slip opinion, pages 16–17.

Key takeaways

• Rule 10390 and Coldiron operate together.
• Every entity and policy provision affecting payment responsibility must be disclosed.
• A third-party administrator is not a substitute for identifying the actual parties.
• Final liability still depends on the policy and adjudicated record.