CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ10887310
Regular
Jan 30, 2023

OSCAR MARTINEZ vs. SECURITA AMERICA, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

The applicant, Oscar Martinez, was injured on May 3, 2017, resulting in a 3% permanent disability. He returned to his regular job duties with his employer, Securita America, Inc., but was laid off approximately five months later due to his employer's contract ending. While Martinez subsequently worked for a new employer at the same location and performing similar duties, the Board found that this did not satisfy the requirement of returning to the "same job for the same employer" for at least 12 months. Therefore, the Appeals Board amended the prior finding, ruling that Martinez is entitled to a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherpermanent partial disabilityemployer's dutyregular work offermodified work offeralternative work offer12-month durationRule 10133.31(c)substantial evidence
References
Case No. ANA 0363299
Regular
Jan 03, 2008

JONATHON ROONEY vs. LOWE'S, KEMPER/RELIANCE By SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that an employee can receive compensation for a psychiatric injury even if the underlying physical injury occurred within the first six months of employment. The Board's decision relies on precedent establishing that Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)'s six-month employment requirement is met if the total duration of employment exceeds six months, regardless of whether that period was fully completed before the date of injury. This interpretation aims to prevent fraudulent claims during an employee's initial probationary period, a purpose not undermined when employment continues beyond six months.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementcompensable consequencedate of injuryemployment durationpetition for reconsiderationworkers' compensationCaliforniaapplicant
References
Case No. ADJ2767633 (SRO 0140485)
Regular
Jan 29, 2010

MARTY HOGUE vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, granting the defendant's petition to reduce the applicant's permanent disability award by 15%. The Board found that the defendant met its obligation under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) by offering modified work within 60 days of the applicant's permanent and stationary date. Crucially, the Board clarified that the required 12-month period of employment in modified work does not need to be continuous to qualify for the benefit reduction. Therefore, the applicant's award was reduced as permitted by the statute.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A)Petition to Reopen/Reducepermanent disability awardmodified work12 months continuous employmentpermanent and stationary datestipulationstreating physicianDisability Case Managerreasonable commuting distance
References
Case No. ADJ1921631
Regular
Aug 03, 2009

HERNAN MARTINEZ vs. YAMATO RESTAURANT, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sustained industrial injuries to his back and psyche, claiming a sleep disorder. The defendant sought to raise Labor Code § 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims, but the WCJ initially denied this. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the six-month rule can be raised at any time as it pertains to compensation payment, not jurisdiction. The Board amended the WCJ's order to allow the defendant to raise this issue at trial.

RemovalLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six-month rulePsychiatric injuryCompensabilityStipulationIndustrial injuryPetition for RemovalWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9873554
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

DINO MONTEVERDE vs. WATERMARK CAPITAL, HARTFORD SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying his claim for psychiatric injury. The primary issue was whether the applicant's employment duration met the six-month threshold required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) for psychiatric claims. The Board upheld the judge's finding that the applicant did not meet this requirement, as his employment lasted less than six months. Therefore, reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementindustrial injuryAOE/COEpetition for reconsiderationdenial of petitioninside salespersonV.A. treatment
References
Case No. ADJ113545 (OAK 0241908)
Regular
Aug 25, 2014

KEVIN BRACKEN vs. TEAM COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, for CAL COMP, In Liquidation, Adjusted By SEDGWICK CMS

In *Bracken v. Team Commercial Construction*, the applicant sought reconsideration of a Finding of Fact that barred his psychiatric injury claim under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The applicant argued that his employment duration exceeded the required six months for a compensable consequence psychiatric injury. However, stipulated facts revealed the applicant worked for the employer for less than the six-month period stipulated by the statute. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the psychiatric claim barred.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurycompensable consequence injurysix-month employment requirementpetition for reconsiderationFinding of FactReport and Recommendationstipulationsjackhammer operatorspecific injury
References
Case No. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
Case No. LAO 0771521
Regular
Apr 07, 2008

GILBERT RODRIGUEZ vs. MMM PLASTERING, ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied his claim for psychiatric injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's findings that the applicant did not establish he worked the required six months for psychiatric injury claims and that his injury was not caused by a sudden and extraordinary event. Inconsistent testimony from the applicant regarding his employment duration and the mechanism of his injury led to a credibility determination against him.

Psychiatric injurySix-month ruleLabor Code § 3208.3(d)Sudden and extraordinary eventCompensable consequenceCredibility of witnessesInconsistent statementsFindings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ's report
References
Case No. ADJ1296930 (LAO 0870001)
Regular
Apr 04, 2010

FALISE HARRELL JACKSON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES/DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and reversed the finding of a psychiatric injury for an applicant employed less than six months. The WCAB determined that the applicant's injury, sustained when a driver intentionally struck her with a vehicle, did not constitute a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). Evidence indicated such events, while unfortunate, were not uncommon for traffic officers, and training existed to handle them. Therefore, the psychiatric injury claim was barred due to the insufficient employment duration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsyche injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionLabor Code section 3208.3(d)six-month employment requirementtraffic officeradmitted industrial injurytraffic control officerscompensable psychiatric injurypetition for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 494 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational