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. ADJ6866226
Regular
Sep 08, 2014

Patrick Vigil vs. Clars Estate Auction Gallery, First Comp Insurance

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, rescinding the WCJ's finding of no industrial injury. While the parties had stipulated to injury AOE/COE and settled the claim, the WCJ erroneously found otherwise. However, the Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to establish a violation of Labor Code section 132a. Ultimately, the applicant takes nothing on his section 132a claim, but the industrial injury finding is reinstated based on the prior stipulation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ6866226Patrick VigilCLARS Estate Auction GalleryFIRST COMP INSURANCEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderInjury AOE/COELabor Code Section 132aViolation of 132a
References
Case No. ADJ1040857
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

IRENE CHAVEZ vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AUTO AUCTION, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found no violation of Labor Code section 132a. The ALJ credited the testimony of defense witnesses regarding the applicant's attendance issues and the employer's policies. The applicant failed to prove she was treated differently or suffered disadvantages due to her work-related injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.LC 132a violationcredibility findingattendance policyterminationdepositionsecurity video
References
Case No. ADJ3566620 (SBR 0331934) ADJ3758235 (SBR 0336076)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MELANIE MEDBERY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Payless Shoe Source's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and lower extremity. Crucially, they affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Payless violated Labor Code section 132a by unlawfully terminating the applicant. The employer's stated reason for termination, a violation of the attendance policy, was deemed pretextual and not supported by the evidence or the company's own handbook.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryLabor Code Section 132aViolationDiscriminationDifferential Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ433589 (VNO 0467795)
Regular
Dec 19, 2013

GLADYS GIRON vs. JUDITH LARSON, IDEAL FOODS, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gladys Giron's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board admonished applicant's counsel for multiple procedural violations in the petition, including exceeding page limits with improper formatting and appending improperly admitted evidence. Furthermore, the petition's tone bordered on impugning the Workers' Compensation Judge's integrity, which is sanctionable. Finally, an unfiled Response was submitted by applicant's counsel.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportApplicant's CounselPage Limit ViolationFont Size ViolationLinespacing ViolationRule 10842(c)Rule 10856Catering Truck and Route AgreementSworn Statement
References
Case No. ADJ6624664; ADJ6624781
Regular
Jul 19, 2011

WALTER ELLIS vs. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, which found that applicant Walter Ellis failed to prove his claimed injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report explaining that Ellis' petition for reconsideration was deficient, lacking proper service and verification. Furthermore, the WCJ properly denied Ellis' request for reassignment, as trial had already commenced and the claimed bias was not substantiated. Finally, the WCJ found no violation of Labor Code section 132a, as there was no evidence the employer discriminated against Ellis due to a workers' compensation claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJAOE-COELC 132aDiscriminationProof of ServiceVerificationJudicial BiasEx Parte Communication
References
Case No. GOL 0093796
Regular
Apr 19, 2007

John Andersen vs. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Court of Appeal held that the City of Santa Barbara violated Labor Code section 132a by requiring an employee injured on the job to use vacation time for medical appointments while allowing others to use sick leave. While upholding the Board's decisions on permanent disability and apportionment, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine penalties and costs for the section 132a violation. The Appeals Board has now amended its prior decision to formally find a violation of Labor Code section 132a and returned the matter to the trial level for the determination of awards, fines, and costs.

Labor Code section 132aRemittiturPermanent disabilityApportionmentDiscriminationVacation timeSick leaveIndustrial injuryCourt of AppealWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
Case No. ADJ6744369
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

MIKE SANDOVAL vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant alleging a violation of Labor Code section 132a for termination following a back injury. While the applicant demonstrated detriment from termination and an industrial injury, the Appeals Board overturned the finding of a 132a violation. The employer terminated the applicant due to a sincere belief he obtained temporary alternate work (TAW) under false pretenses, not solely because of his injury. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to reinstatement or increased benefits under section 132a, though temporary disability benefits are awarded.

Labor Code Section 132aDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentBusiness RealitiesTemporary Alternate Work (TAW)Theft of WagesFalsification of Claim
References
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
Case No. ADJ1034572
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

TROY BOWEN vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The applicant, Troy Bowen, alleged his employer, the Regents of the University of California, violated Labor Code § 132a by retaliating against him, leading to his termination. The WCJ found the applicant's allegations of discrimination and his version of events not credible. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, deferring to the judge's credibility determinations, and found no violation of Labor Code § 132a based on the evidence.

Labor Code § 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJcredibility determinationdiscriminationretaliatory conductterminationrestricted areaindustrial injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,014 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