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. ADJ11237829
Regular
Apr 22, 2019

JOE HOWARD vs. SUNCHEMICAL CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, adopting the workers' compensation judge's (WCJ) report. While the Board clarified that equitable estoppel does not require an element of specific "intent" to deceive, agreeing with *Honeywell* that negligence can suffice, the applicant failed to establish detrimental reliance. Therefore, the petition was denied.

WCABSun Chemical CorporationNational Union Fire InsuranceBroadspirePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeEquitable EstoppelHoneywell v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.City of Long Beach v. Mansell
References
Case No. ADJ3552048 (LAO 0795520)
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

JAVIER GALINDO vs. MEAT EXPORTE CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant's appeal challenging the disallowance of psychiatric treatment costs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the original decision, finding the applicant did not meet the six-month actual work requirement under Labor Code section 3208.3(d) for psychiatric injury claims. The applicant's extensive absences due to an admitted orthopedic injury meant he did not perform six months of actual service. The WCAB clarified that this six-month threshold applies even to psychiatric injuries stemming from admitted physical injuries. The lien claimant's arguments regarding detrimental reliance and the necessity of treatment for the orthopedic injury were also rejected.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix months actual worklien claimantindustrial orthopedic injurydetrimentally reliedimplied authorizationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9972218
Regular
May 30, 2025

Andres Hernandez vs. Pearce Services, Inc.; Sparta Insurance Company

This case concerns Andres Hernandez's Petition for Reconsideration regarding a workers' compensation administrative law judge's finding that his Petition to Reopen was time-barred by Labor Code section 5410. The applicant sustained an industrial injury to his left knee in December 2013, leading to a stipulated Award in May 2015. Following left knee surgery in October 2018, he filed a Petition to Reopen in February 2019, claiming new and further disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that the five-year statute of limitations was not tolled by the defendant's provision of benefits or notices, as the applicant did not prove receipt or reliance on any affirmative statement to delay filing before the limitation period expired. Thus, the claim for new and further permanent disability was barred.

Petition to ReopenFive-Year Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityStipulated AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityNotice of Ending BenefitsTollingEstoppel
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
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. LAO 0815051 LAO 0815053
Regular
Jul 10, 2007

ARACELI MENDEZ vs. VAN LAW FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant was terminated for insubordination, not for her industrial injury. While the applicant was "written up" for late reporting of her injury, this action alone, without a material adverse employment action, does not constitute a violation of Labor Code §132a. Therefore, the prior finding of unlawful discrimination under §132a was overturned.

Labor Code §132aDiscriminationReconsiderationInsubordinationIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseDetrimentWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ4265919
Regular
Mar 02, 2009

F. GAITAN vs. K&S FARMS, COMP WEST INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury and was subsequently terminated by his employer, K&S Farms, while on temporary disability. The applicant filed a claim alleging discrimination under Labor Code section 132a, arguing the termination was a penalty for his injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found no violation of section 132a. The Board determined the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that his termination was "because of" his industrial injury, as required by law.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationprima facie caseindustrial injurydetrimentdisparate treatmenteconomic justificationbusiness necessitytemporary disabilityreinstatement
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. 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. ADJ3132204 (AHM 0076439) ADJ3910647 (RIV 0069381)
Regular
Mar 04, 2013

LYNETTE WINTER vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning a prior decision that denied treatment at the Kerlan Jobe Clinic. The Board found that while Kerlan Jobe was located outside the standard MPN mileage/time parameters, the applicant's selection was reasonable given her complex spinal condition and the clinic's expertise. Defendant is now obligated to authorize treatment with a Kerlan Jobe physician. All other issues remain deferred.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Kerlan Jobe ClinicDetrimental RelianceContract FormationExpedited HearingMinutes of HearingReport and RecommendationIndustrial Injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 26 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