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. ADJ3047961 (SAC 0362761) ADJ2039708 (SAC 0362762)
Regular
May 04, 2009

Kevin Martinez vs. JOHN JACKSON MASONRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating an employee who sustained industrial injuries. The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's finding of discrimination, determining the employer acted based on business necessity due to the employee's inability to perform modified duties and the company's financial hardship. The employer argued the termination was a business decision and not based on the employee's injury. A dissenting commissioner believed the termination, without medical substantiation of permanent disability, constituted unlawful discrimination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationModified WorkBusiness NecessityTerminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie CaseReconsiderationFindings Order Award
References
Case No. ADJ6994190
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

JUAN GAMBOA vs. HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that he did not prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to demonstrate he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his work-related injury. The employer presented evidence of a business slowdown and layoffs affecting both industrially and non-industrially injured employees. Therefore, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof regarding discriminatory treatment.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderworkers' compensation administrative law judgedisadvantageous treatmentbusiness necessityeconomic slowdowntemporary hirere-hireddisabled workers
References
Case No. SBR 0315782
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

GORDON ADAMS vs. SOUTHLAND DRYWALL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc., whose lien was denied because it allegedly did not use its full corporate name or have a fictitious business name permit. The Appeals Board rescinded the denial and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that Premier was properly licensed as an outpatient facility and that the defendant did not timely raise the fictitious business name statement issue. The Board clarified that a facility fee lien claimant is not required to have a Medical Board fictitious-name permit, but may need to file a fictitious business name statement if operating under a name other than its legal corporate name.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFictitious Business Name StatementFictitious-Name PermitBusiness & Professions Code Section 17910Business & Professions Code Section 2415(a)Medical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient SettingFacility FeeCompromise and Release
References
Case No. LAO 0794643
Regular
May 07, 2008

FRANCISCO CHAPA vs. GIBSON OVERSEAS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the initial denial of a lien claim by S&B Surgery Center. The Board found the record insufficient regarding S&B's licensure and proper business naming, remanding the case for further development. This includes proving proper licensure as an "outpatient setting" and addressing the necessity of filing a fictitious business name statement, followed by a determination of the reasonableness of the billed fees.

Lien claimantreconsiderationlicensurefictitious business name statementoutpatient settingsurgical clinicMedical Boardcounty clerkreasonableness of feesburden of proof
References
Case No. FRE 232878
Regular
Dec 26, 2007

DEBORAH FRENCH vs. CITY OF CORCORAN, AIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Deborah French's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The applicant's claim of discriminatory reclassification following a workplace injury was found to be without merit, as the employer demonstrated business necessity and provided modified work. The board gave great weight to the judge's credibility findings, which indicated the applicant did not effectively challenge her reclassification or actively seek to return to her previous duties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132(a)Petition for ReconsiderationWCJAOE/COEAgreed Medical ExaminerBusiness necessityPolice officerDispatcherModified work
References
Case No. ADJ8066822
Regular
May 30, 2019

SCOTT WALL vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a deputy sheriff sergeant, Scott Wall, who alleges discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Wall was denied a requested transfer to a patrol division while on injury leave, despite having the seniority for it. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the County of Sacramento discriminated against Wall by denying the transfer, as less senior employees were transferred. The employer's defense of business necessity was rejected because the County had other options to fill the critical patrol positions.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTransfer denialSeniorityBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDisadvantageous treatmentWCJReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9234995
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

JASON ROMAN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision denying his Labor Code section 132a claim, which alleged unlawful termination due to his work injury. The applicant argued the employer failed to prove business necessity for termination and improperly denied him a promotional service writer position. The Board granted reconsideration, finding further record development necessary on the 132a claim, particularly regarding the denial of the service writer position. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code 132aPetition for ReconsiderationBusiness NecessityReasonable AccommodationService Writer PositionPromotional PositionHigher SalaryWCJ Report and RecommendationAppeals BoardStatutory Rights
References
Case No. ANA 0373315
Regular
Jun 30, 2008

Julie Branch vs. HACHETTE FILIPACCHI MEDIA U.S., INC., dba ROAD AND TRACK, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a Labor Code §132a claim filed by Julie Branch against Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc. Branch alleged discrimination in two waves: a changed attitude and loss of perks after an injury, and a subsequent layoff. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the first wave barred by the statute of limitations and the second wave to be a business necessity. Therefore, the Board affirmed the denial of Branch's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §132aPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryStatute of LimitationsBusiness NecessityAt-Will EmployeeWork Seniority
References
Case No. ADJ2254122 (VNO 0535926)
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

RICHARD GUERRA vs. MR. ROOTER PLUMBING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant was terminated in violation of Labor Code section 132a due to his workers' compensation claim. The employer failed to prove business necessity for the termination, as their stated reasons were inconsistent and unsupported by evidence, and the applicant was singled out due to workers' compensation concerns. However, the Board deferred the issues of reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits pending further medical evidence on the applicant's ability to return to work.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationReinstatementRetroactive wagesBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDetrimental treatmentDownsizingQualified injured workerIndependent contractor
References
Case No. STK 175646 STK 175647
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

Shaw vs. Clovis Unified School District

The Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding the employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating the applicant due to her industrial injury. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, and the employer failed to prove a business necessity for her termination, as she was able to perform her job with self-modification and the employer's justification was not supported by evidence available at the time of the termination. Consequently, the employer was ordered to pay increased compensation, lost wages, and benefits, subject to collateral source reductions.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationreinstatementlost wagesbenefitscollateral sourcesprima facie casequalified injured worker (QIW)customary occupationbusiness necessity
References
Showing 1-10 of 880 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