Rocha: Vocational Report Costs Are Evaluated When Incurred

A vocational report can be reasonably necessary when obtained even if it does not ultimately change a permanent-disability rating. In Theresa Rocha, No. ADJ11672907 (WCAB Sept. 24, 2026), a panel denied the defendant’s petition for reconsideration of an order allowing an additional psychiatric QME panel and requiring payment of reasonable costs for a vocational report. The decision did not resolve the claimed psychiatric injury or reopening merits.

The useful distinction is between paying reasonable litigation expenses and proving the ultimate benefit claim. This panel decision is persuasive authority, not an en banc precedent. Its reasoning turns on the actual medical and vocational record.

The medical record left a specialty question unanswered

The worker sustained an admitted right ankle and foot injury while working as a cashier in 2017. The parties later stipulated to 46-percent permanent disability for those body parts. A petition to reopen and a claimed psychiatric injury raised issues beyond that original disposition. Orthopedic AME Dr. Feinberg discussed complex regional pain syndrome and psychiatric concerns, but he was not a psychiatric specialist. His evidence identified a need for psychiatric evaluation rather than resolving the psychiatric issues himself. Rocha, slip op. at 2–5.

The procedural history included earlier adverse findings and further proceedings. The August 6, 2026 order under review found good cause for an additional psychiatric panel, required payment of reasonable costs for vocational expert Diaz’s April 13, 2021 report, and deferred the remaining disputed issues. The September 24 panel denied the defendant’s reconsideration petition. That disposition should not be described as a new award of permanent total disability or a final finding of industrial psychiatric injury.

Evaluate report costs when the expense was incurred

On the vocational expense, the panel applied the reasonableness-and-necessity analysis discussed in Costa II. The inquiry is made case by case and considers the circumstances when the report was obtained. A report need not ultimately affect the permanent-disability rating to support reimbursement. The panel also discussed Barr in explaining that admission into evidence is not a prerequisite to recovery of reasonable and necessary costs under Labor Code section 5811. Rocha, slip op. at 11–12.

Here, the medical restrictions included sedentary work, minimal weight bearing with an assistive device, and restrictions involving excessive bending and twisting, as well as kneeling. Questions remained about maintaining a full work schedule, while psychiatric matters were unresolved. Those facts supplied a reason to obtain vocational input about the worker’s employment prospects. The panel did not require the worker to prove the final disability outcome before the expense could be justified.

This does not make every report or invoice payable. The order addressed reasonable costs, and the justification still depends on the work performed and the record available at the time. A request should explain what vocational question required investigation, what medical restrictions informed the assessment, when the work was commissioned, and how the requested expense relates to that task. An unsuccessful merits argument and an unnecessary expense are different conclusions.

An additional panel develops evidence; it does not decide the claim

The panel separately considered the missing psychiatric evaluation. Title 8, section 31.7 generally calls for follow-up or supplemental evaluation from the existing evaluator to the extent possible when a new medical dispute arises. It also permits an additional specialty panel on the specified showing of good cause, including a qualifying judicial order. Rocha, slip op. at 9–11.

The orthopedic evaluator could not supply the missing psychiatric assessment. In that setting, allowing a psychiatric panel addressed an evidentiary gap before a final merits determination. It did not convert an orthopedic physician’s discussion of psychological concerns into a specialist’s causation opinion, and it did not itself prove the claimed injury or entitlement to reopening. A physician’s recommendation and the legal procedure for obtaining a panel remain separate steps.

Keep the cost question separate from the proof question

For a report-cost dispute, preserve the medical restrictions and unresolved questions that existed when the expert was retained, together with the report, scope of work, and billing support. For the disability dispute, examine whether the resulting opinions actually provide the necessary medical and vocational foundation. Those records overlap, but they answer different questions.

Our analysis of Cosentino and missing specialty restrictions addresses why a vocational opinion cannot fill a missing medical foundation for a final disability finding. Rocha adds the distinct point that reasonable vocational costs are not judged solely by whether the report wins that final dispute. Both questions can be reviewed within the workers’ compensation practice, using the actual orders and reports rather than the outcome label alone.