Pacheco: An Unapproved Training Course and an Expired Voucher Defeated Reimbursement

A private course’s promise of a certificate did not establish that its cost qualified for reimbursement from a workers’ compensation retraining voucher. In Pacheco v. Breakaway Press, Inc., No. ADJ11126563 (WCAB Sept. 18, 2026), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed denial of reimbursement for chaplaincy training and the finding that the remaining voucher had expired. The worker had not established an eligible training provider, a qualifying professional-certification expense or facts supporting his requested tolling.

The three-commissioner WCAB panel issued its decision on September 18, 2026 and expressly adopted and incorporated the trial judge’s report. The seven-page official source supplies the panel’s order and the adopted reasoning.

The course dispute and the voucher deadline developed separately

Pacheco sustained an admitted bilateral-knee injury while working as a pressman and stocker. He paid $4,307 for a three-year private chaplaincy course. The parties stipulated that its provider was not certified under California law. An April 2019 letter told him the insurer would not pay because the course did not meet the public-school or approved-provider requirements. The evidence also failed to connect the requested examination and related fees to qualifying occupational licensing or professional certification. Pacheco, incorporated report, pages 4–5.

The voucher in this case was furnished July 1, 2019, with an expiration date of July 1, 2021. Computer-related reimbursement had left approximately $4,500 available. Pacheco knew about the denial and the two-year expiration period. By the time he sought to use the balance for photography training, the voucher had expired, and the record did not show eligible photography-school expenses incurred before expiration. A separate voucher from another injury claim had already been used for computer training; it was not the benefit being adjudicated here. Pacheco, pages 4–7.

Two permitted spending categories required different proof

The Board examined Labor Code section 4658.7(e)(1) and (2). The first category covers education-related retraining or skill enhancement at a California public school or a certified provider on the state’s Eligible Training Provider List. The second covers occupational licensing or professional-certification fees and related examinations and preparation. A program’s general career value does not establish that it satisfies either category. Pacheco, page 2.

The stipulation that the school was not certified defeated the first route. For the second, the worker needed evidence connecting what he purchased to the professional qualification being claimed. The chaplain job postings he supplied referred to clinical pastoral education or certification associated with the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education. The record did not show that his course supplied that qualification. A certificate issued by the private provider was not enough to bridge that evidentiary gap. Pacheco, pages 2, 5–6.

The relevant comparison was between the qualification identified in the submitted job postings and what this course actually provided. That left a specific evidentiary gap under the professional-certification route, in addition to the separate approved-provider problem under the education route.

Why the requested tolling failed on this record

Pacheco argued that time should stop running while the insurer denied reimbursement and the dispute remained pending. The adopted report found no supporting authority or evidence for tolling here. In particular, there was no showing that the administrator had misled him into relying on a representation that would excuse the delay. The administrator had instead told him the course was ineligible and encouraged use of the voucher at an approved school during its remaining life. Pacheco, pages 5–7.

A vocational counselor had suggested the course might be reimbursable, but she did not work for the insurer, and the record contained no evidence that the insurer adopted her explanation. That distinction mattered to detrimental reliance. The worker’s knowledge of the denial and expiration also cut against the excuse he sought. The Board affirmed the expiration ruling on those facts.

The Board affirmed the order rather than dismissing solely for defective briefing

The trial judge criticized the reconsideration petition as skeletal because it lacked specific record and legal support. The Board nevertheless considered the record, adopted the report and affirmed the May 9, 2022 findings and order. The affirmance left the reimbursement denial and voucher-expiration finding in place, awarded no additional reimbursement and ordered no further merits hearing. Pacheco, pages 2–4, 7.

What to verify before committing voucher funds

Keep school approval separate from the credential the course promises. Obtain the provider’s listing or public-school status, an itemized course and examination description, and the licensing or certification requirements for the occupation. If reimbursement rests on a professional-certification category rather than eligible-school tuition, identify that category and the documents supporting it before spending money.

Also distinguish money still shown on a voucher from money available for a new expense before expiration. Preserve the complete voucher, denial letters, reimbursement submissions and service dates. Our SJDB spending guide explains the broader budget and expense limits; this decision explains why a particular course and claimed excuse failed. A workers’ compensation review should address the actual denial and deadline together, rather than assume that disputing one expense preserves the balance indefinitely.