Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
Reconsideration granted to address errors in permanent disability rating and apportionment. Matter returned for new rating considering walker use and clarifying apportionment.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to further develop the record regarding applicant Marisol Peralta's alleged industrial injury. The WCAB rescinded the prior decision finding an injury, citing that the medical opinions were not substantial evidence as they lacked definitive causation findings and weren't based on complete medical histories. Crucially, neither physician reviewed applicant's full medical records, and one deferred causation due to pregnancy while the other awaited X-ray results. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision by the WCJ.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify a previous order, rescinding the original Findings and Order. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the post-termination defense, but the WCAB found exceptions applied under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10)(A) and 3600(a)(10)(D). The WCAB determined the date of injury was March 5, 2015, subsequent to the termination notice, and returned the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record regarding the extent of the applicant's injuries.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct typographical errors in the original findings regarding the dates of alleged injury. The Board rescinded the finding that the applicant's December 10, 2014 claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), finding the applicant had reported the injury to his employer prior to termination. However, the Board upheld the finding of no industrial causation for the injuries, leaving the applicant with a "take nothing" order on the applications.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the previous award, finding the applicant's burn injury did not qualify for the "severe burns" exception to the temporary disability indemnity limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(3)(D). Consequently, temporary disability indemnity is limited to 104 weeks from the commencement of payments on August 10, 2004. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's psychiatric injury was compensable, meeting the "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition exception. Clerical errors in the original findings were also corrected.
The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.
This case involves a workers' compensation claim filed by David Schultze after his employment termination. The primary legal issue is whether Schultze's claim is barred by the Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) post-termination defense, which requires evidence of injury to exist in medical records prior to termination. The Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that an exception applied, admitting medical records from Frazier Mountain Community Health Center despite their late disclosure. However, a dissenting opinion argued these records were inadmissible due to procedural rules and did not sufficiently prove the injury date or the applicability of the exception.
This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.
This case concerns whether an industrial injury claim was barred as post-termination under Labor Code § 3600(a)(10). The applicant faxed a claim form on April 10, 2009, before receiving his termination notice on April 14, 2009, which was dated April 10, 2009, and mailed April 13, 2009. The Board affirmed the finding that the employer had sufficient notice of the injury prior to termination via the faxed claim form. Therefore, the claim was not barred as post-termination.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The Board reasoned that section 5814.5 requires an award of attorney's fees to be "in addition to" increased compensation under section 5814, which was not sought or awarded here. Furthermore, the Board found that any delay in payment was not unreasonable due to a good-faith dispute over the net settlement amount.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.