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. ADJ7865722
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

ILIA JAROSTCHUK vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant ARS' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding ARS failed to support its contentions with specific record references. Furthermore, the Board found that ARS, as the lien claimant, did not meet its burden to prove its charges were reasonable and necessary. The denial is consistent with legal precedent and procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantARS LegalCopy ServicesReasonableness of ChargesBurden of ProofProfessional AthleteStipulations with Request for AwardFindings and 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. ADJ10597289
Regular
Nov 02, 2019

JHOANNA FELIX vs. FOOTHILL CARE CENTER, INC dba GOLDEN STATE CARE CENTER

This case involved a worker claiming her employer violated Labor Code §132a by discriminating against her after she reported an industrial injury. The applicant argued the employer's safety program penalized employees who filed claims. However, the court affirmed the denial of her petition, finding no evidence the program actually discriminated against injured workers. The applicant also failed to prove she was credible regarding coworker harassment stemming from her claim. Therefore, the employer's actions were not found to be discriminatory under the law.

Labor Code §132aDiscriminationIndustrial injuryRetaliationSafety programPrima facie caseLegal rightEmployer dutyDisadvantagesSingled out
References
Case No. ADJ9986016
Regular
Nov 13, 2019

FABRICIO MARTINEZ vs. EXPERT TRUCKING, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Expert Trucking's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original award. The applicant, Fabricio Martinez, successfully proved his employer terminated him in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The applicant's testimony, which was undisputed, indicated he was told he could not have his job back because he hired an attorney for his workers' compensation claim. The Board found that the applicant did not need to prove his ability to perform the job, entitlement to accommodation, or mitigation of losses to establish a prima facie section 132a claim.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPrima Facie CaseLegal RightLegal Duty
References
Case No. ADJ 3006646 (GOL 0101478) ADJ 4273750 (GOL 0101479)
Regular
Dec 23, 2010

YOLANDA ROMO RODRIGUEZ vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Applicant Yolanda Romo-Rodriguez sought penalties under Labor Code § 132a, alleging the County of Santa Barbara discriminated against her by denying a 9/80 work schedule after her industrial injury. The WCJ denied the petition, finding no evidence applicant was singled out due to her injury, as others in her training class also worked 40-hour weeks. The employer demonstrated a business necessity for the 40-hour schedule due to call center performance demands. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's findings.

Labor Code section 132aDiscrimination9/80 work scheduleBusiness necessityReconsiderationPenaltiesFinding of FactIndustrial injuryLauher standardEligibility worker
References
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ1778830 (STK 0204284)
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

JOSE DAVILLA vs. GOLDEN STATE COLLISION CENTERS, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

This case concerns Jose Davila's petition for reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his claim for increased benefits under Labor Code section 132a. Davila argued his employer, Golden State Collision Centers, improperly terminated him due to his work-related injury. The WCJ found Davila failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his termination was for failing to provide requested FMLA paperwork, a policy applied uniformly to all employees regardless of injury status. Furthermore, the employer credibly testified they were unaware of the work-related injury until after Davila's termination. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibilityAssistant PainterDate of InjuryFMLA paperworkDiscriminationDetrimental Consequence
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. ADJ8258390, ADJ8246247, ADJ9024430
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

HAMIDULLAH SARWARY vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a finding that he failed to prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating him after resolving his workers' compensation claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the judge's decision lacked clarity regarding evidence of termination and temporal proximity between settlement and separation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the record on whether the applicant was terminated due to his settlement and if such termination was necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aRetaliationDiscriminationTerminationCompromise and ReleasePrima facie caseBusiness realitiesTemporal proximityDisadvantageous treatmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ10817975
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

ALISON MARQUEZ vs. EL PESCADOR, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED

This case involved a worker claiming unlawful discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued that the defendant's witness testimony lacked credibility and was presented without an interpreter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the initial decision finding no discrimination. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, concluding the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination because the evidence did not support claims of witness incredibility or lack of interpreter causing confusion.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJPrima Facie CaseLegal RightDetriment
References
Showing 1-10 of 25 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