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. ADJ10738865, ADJ13719149
Regular
Feb 16, 2023

MICHAEL GARCIA vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Michael Garcia's petition for removal challenging a WCJ's order to set trial for defendant Southern California Edison to present witness Carol Wood. Garcia argued the witness was not disclosed prior to the initial trial and that Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) barred her testimony. The Board found no irreparable harm or substantial prejudice, noting the order complied with prior WCAB instructions to further develop the record on Garcia's discrimination claim and Edison's business necessity defense. This action allows Edison to present its defense, which the Board previously indicated needed to be fully explored.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for RemovalWCABWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmbusiness necessities defensedisclosure of witnessesMSCstipulation
References
Case No. AHM 0117948
Regular
Dec 04, 2007

LISA M. WOLFE vs. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior decision, finding that the applicant failed to prove her termination violated Labor Code section 132a. The Board determined the applicant did not show she was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to her industrial injury. Even if a prima facie case were established, the employer's business necessity defense, based on the applicant's extended absence and uncertain return to work, would have prevailed.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminatory terminationbusiness necessity defenseprima facie casereinstatementlost wagespermanent disabilityqualified medical examinationvoice activated softwarerepetitive keyboarding
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
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. 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. ADJ8921826
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

ELVIA VELAZQUEZ NAVA vs. RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, finding sufficient grounds for a change of venue. The venue was transferred to the Pomona district office due to the significant inconvenience and expense for four key witnesses residing near Pomona who would testify regarding the applicant's employment and injury notification defense. This decision acknowledges that while the initial petition lacked specific street addresses, the cumulative hardship on witnesses justified the venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemoval on Board MotionDecision After RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6Presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOrder Denying Petition for Change of VenueIndustrial cumulative trauma injuryApplicant's attorney's principal place of business
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,662 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