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. ADJ1898212 (LAO 0671427) ADJ957820 (LAO 0688269)
Regular
Oct 07, 2008

SAMSON BOGANIM vs. BEVERLY HILLS HILTON, HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding the applicant entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance. The applicant sustained industrial injuries to his neck and back, and a hernia, resulting in a combined permanent disability of 9.25%. The defendant's appeal was denied, upholding the finding that the applicant was a qualified injured worker entitled to benefits.

BoganimBeverly Hills HiltonHilton Hotels Corporationvocational rehabilitation maintenance allowancetemporary disability ratequalified rehabilitation representativesecurity guardsupervisorcumulative injuryindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ4386818 (SAL 0091744) ADJ2744571 (SAL 0087231)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

SUSAN FERGUSON vs. MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB; SEDGWICK CMS, Administered By CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Susan Ferguson's reconsideration, affirming that her right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was barred by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5. The Board found her rights did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the repeal, citing precedent from *Weiner v. Ralph's Company* and *Beverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Boganim)*. These decisions established that VRMA rights terminate upon repeal unless a final appellate decision exists, which Ferguson lacked. Therefore, the WCJ lacked jurisdiction after January 1, 2009, to grant VRMA benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code Section 139.5Vesting of RightsSavings ClauseSection 5502(b)(3)En Banc DecisionsWeiner v. Ralph's CompanyBeverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ1644350 (SFO 0474033)
Regular
Jan 20, 2010

ESPERANZA JACKSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO MARRIOTT, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a decision to rescind a retroactive VRMA award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's (WCJ) finding. The WCJ determined, based on the precedent set in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, that the Rehabilitation Unit award was not final before January 1, 2009, due to a pending defendant's appeal. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding the *Weiner* decision controlling and binding until higher court review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRehabilitation UnitVRMAAppealWeiner caseCalifornia Supreme CourtWrit of Reviewcontinuing jurisdictionen banc decision
References
Case No. ADJ1921592 (WCK 0066470) ADJ3931416 (WCK 0005120)
Regular
Oct 22, 2009

EDWARD SHEPPARD vs. BAYSHORE SYSTEMS, INC., CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

The WCJ's decision granting applicant vocational rehabilitation benefits is reversed because applicant's right to such benefits did not vest before the January 1, 2009 repeal of Labor Code section 139.5.

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Weiner IWeiner IIBoganimvested rightsinchoate rightrepeal dateRehabilitation UnitAppeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ3846659 (VNO0418631) ADJ4148234 (VNO0456818)
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MICHELE SHELMAN vs. OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CIGA For Reliance In Liquidation, Administered By SEDGWICK

The applicant's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was denied reconsideration. This is because Labor Code section 139.5, which authorized these benefits, was repealed effective December 31, 2008. The applicant's right to these benefits had not vested before the repeal, as the Rehabilitation Unit's decision was still subject to appeal. Consequently, the repeal extinguished the applicant's inchoate rights to vocational rehabilitation services.

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Repeal of statuteVesting of rightsInchoate rightsFinal judgmentRehabilitation UnitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedBoganim
References
Case No. ADJ584782 AHM 0114457
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

James Green vs. Ralph's Grocery Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if Ralph's Grocery Company's appeal of a Rehabilitation Unit order was timely. The Board found the appeal was timely because the defendant received the order on July 3, 2008, and filed their appeal on July 10, 2008. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order, finding Ralph's Grocery Company is not liable for vocational rehabilitation services or maintenance allowance. This decision is based on the applicant's right to such benefits expiring on January 1, 2009.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalph's Grocery CompanyPermissibly Self-InsuredVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Vocational Rehabilitation ServicesRehabilitation Unit (RU)Decision and Order (D&O)LachesLabor Code section 139.5Timeliness of Appeal
References
Case No. ADJ3628897 (SJO 0253335) ADJ1121410 (SFO 0462353)
Regular
Oct 14, 2009

SUSAN DADVAR vs. REGIS HAIRSTYLIST, ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board rescinded the June 9, 2009 Findings and Award, finding the applicant not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits due to the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSusan DadvarRegis HairstylistAtlantic Mutual Insurance Co.REMCumulative TraumaBilateral Upper ExtremitiesQualified Injured Worker (QIW)Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Average Weekly Earnings
References
Showing 1-7 of 7 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