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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8855938
Regular
Apr 22, 2015

ARLENE SCHERY vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK, CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant suffered a compensable psychiatric injury. The Appeals Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report, giving it great weight due to the opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The WCJ found that actual employment events, including sexual harassment, a YouTube video incident, classroom heat issues, and administrative failures, were predominant in causing the applicant's psychiatric injury, outweighing any good faith personnel actions. Medical evidence from a QME further supported that the applicant's symptoms stemmed from this stressful work environment.

PSYCHIATRIC INJURYINDUSTRIAL CAUSATIONGOOD FAITH PERSONNEL ACTIONSEXUAL HARASSMENTSTUDENT HARASSMENTTEACHER HARASSMENTYOUTUBE VIDEOEXCESSIVE HEATADMINISTRATION ISSUESRETALIATION
References
Case No. ADJ2760698 (VNO 0554027)
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

BERTHA CHAN vs. CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, granting reconsideration and rescinding the initial denial of the applicant's psychiatric and other injury claims. The Board found that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving the applicant received notice of termination *before* she filed her claim. Crucially, the employer had prior notice of the applicant's sexual harassment complaints and her resulting symptoms before her employment ended. Therefore, the Board ruled the applicant's claim was not barred by post-termination statutes, upholding the applicant's right to have her injury considered on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Orderindustrial injurypsycheheadachesinternal systemsexual harassmentLabor Code section 3208.3(e)post-termination claim
References
Case No. ADJ7348149
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

CELINE ROUYA vs. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, CORVEL CORPORATION

The applicant appeals the WCJ's decision denying injury to psyche and other body parts, arguing the WCJ erred by not addressing her harassment claim and finding the personnel actions were in good faith. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the issues, noting discrepancies in witness testimony and insufficient medical opinions on causation. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record, including obtaining clarified medical opinions on causation and further testimony. The dissenting commissioner would affirm the WCJ's decision, finding the personnel actions were legal and non-discriminatory, and applicant's harassment claims were not supported by objective evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCeline RouyaSave Mart SupermarketsCorvel CorporationADJ7348149ReconsiderationPsychiatric InjuryPharmacy TechnicianHarassmentNational Origin
References
Case No. ADJ10533211, ADJ10547118
Regular
Dec 26, 2018

MONICA NURSE (COOK) vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves Monica Nurse's claim for psychological injury due to alleged sexual harassment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied her petition for reconsideration of a prior ruling. The Board found that Nurse failed to provide objective evidence of harassment, a requirement for establishing a compensable psychiatric injury under Labor Code section 3208.3(b)(1). The judge's credibility determination of witnesses, who testified against harassment, was given significant weight. Therefore, her claims were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and Orderpsyche injuryemploymentsexual harassmentobjective evidenceactual events of employmentWCJsubstantial evidence
References
Case No. ADJ7171783
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

William Mickens vs. New England Patriots

Dr. Einbund, the applicant's treating physician, petitioned for removal to prevent a deposition of his transcriber, Jamie Hill, alleging harassment. However, the defendant later informed the WCJ that the deposition was cancelled as Ms. Hill was not the correct transcriber in this case. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed Dr. Einbund's petition as moot.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDepositionMootDismissedTreating PhysicianTranscriberHarassment
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. ADJ8794924
Regular
Nov 12, 2013

PHILLIP POSTON vs. CALTRANS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a Caltrans road maintenance worker who claimed psychological injury due to alleged workplace harassment. The applicant's claim was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The applicant sought reconsideration, arguing the denial was erroneous. The WCAB denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report which found the applicant failed to prove a compensable injury. The WCJ concluded the matter stemmed from an employment dispute rather than a medical condition, and the applicant did not meet the burden of proof.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDenialCaltransState Compensation Insurance FundPhillip PostonADJ8794924workers' compensationinjurypsyche
References
Case No. ADJ11052589
Regular
Oct 29, 2019

Walther, Kenneth vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Kenneth Walther sustained a psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to warrant rejection. The employer's arguments regarding harassment, date of injury, statute of limitations, and the six-month rule were rejected. The date of injury was established as September 29, 2017, when the applicant last worked and became temporarily totally disabled.

AOE/COEpsychiatric injuryharassmentcredibility determinationsdate of injurystatute of limitationssix-month ruletemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryIndependent Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ7136663
Regular
Mar 08, 2011

TONIA OSBY-WREN vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SOUTHERN CAL EDISON ROSEMEAD

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought a protective order to exclude an employee, Gil Aguilar, from her deposition due to alleged harassment and intimidation. The administrative law judge denied the request, finding insufficient evidence and noting the permissive nature of the relevant statute. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as it was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal and issued a protective order barring Aguilar from the deposition, finding adequate evidence of the applicant's fear of him and that Aguilar was neither a party nor an officer.

Protective orderPetition for removalDeposition exclusionGil AguilarDr. Visant SanatharaCCP 2025.420(b)(12)Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeReconsiderationFinal order
References
Showing 1-10 of 63 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