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. ADJ9625407
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

KEITH FIELD vs. CITY OF PINOLE

This case involves a firefighter who sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome after retirement. The Appeals Board reversed the trial judge, holding that Labor Code section 4458.5 applies, entitling the applicant to permanent disability benefits calculated at the maximum indemnity rate. This applies regardless of the applicant's actual earnings or the fact that carpal tunnel syndrome is not a specifically enumerated presumptive injury. The case is remanded for determination of the precise date of injury to calculate the benefit rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith FieldCity of PinolePermissibly Self-InsuredMunicipal Pooling AuthorityADJ9625407Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryfirefighterbilateral upper extremities
References
Case No. ADJ1884066
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

RICHARD REED vs. BAYSIDE INSULATION AND CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release where the settlement expressly excluded future Labor Code section 139.5 benefits. The defendant argued this exclusion was an error, as they intended to settle vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found the exclusion unnecessary and legally inconsequential as Labor Code section 139.5 did not apply to this applicant's injury date, and job displacement benefits are covered under a different section.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationsupplemental job displacement benefitsLabor Code section 4658.5future benefitsindustrial injuryupper extremitiesinsulator
References
Case No. MON 0305426 (ADJ347040)
Regular
May 07, 2009

Daniel Anaya vs. Ralphs Company

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) and a penalty for unreasonable delay. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This action was taken to allow the parties to consider a related en banc decision concerning the jurisdiction of a WCJ to enforce Rehabilitation Unit determinations after the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. The WCAB encourages informal resolution of the disputed issues.

EAMSShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code section 5814(a)penaltyattorney's feesLawrence Weiner v. Ralphs CompanyRehabilitation UnitLC 139.5
References
Case No. SRO 0141948
Regular
Aug 08, 2008

DANIEL J. KOFFLER vs. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, THE TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a defendant's claim that the judge improperly awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found that Labor Code Section 139.5, the basis for the awarded benefits, does not apply to injuries occurring after January 1, 2004, which was the applicant's injury date. Therefore, the Board amended the Compromise and Release to delete the provision for vocational rehabilitation benefits, as the applicant had also settled any claim to supplemental job displacement benefits.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitsLabor Code Section 139.5Labor Code Section 4658.5Industrial InjuryPsyche InjuryMental StressNervous SystemDate of Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3704328
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

WILLIAM HENDERSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES COMMERCE

This case concerns an injured worker's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benefits after Labor Code section 139.5 was repealed effective January 1, 2009. The Appeals Board found that because the worker's right to benefits had not vested by a final order before the repeal, his claim was extinguished. The Board rescinded the prior award and vacated the Rehabilitation Unit's determination. This decision aligns with the Board's en banc ruling in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which clarified that unvested vocational rehabilitation rights are terminated by the repeal of section 139.5.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationvested rightsinchoate rightrepealsaving clauseWCAB jurisdictionRehabilitation UnitVRMAmodified work
References
Case No. ADJ956534 (AHM 0121026), ADJ3508143 (AHM 0121028)
Regular
Apr 29, 2009

OLGA PAREDES vs. NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits. The defendant appealed this award, arguing insufficient evidence of the applicant's qualified injured worker status and improper awarding of maintenance allowance at the temporary disability rate after the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. The Board rescinded the previous award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, citing the need to address the impact of the repeal of Section 139.5 and related en banc decisions. The Board also encouraged informal resolution of the disputed issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational RehabilitationQualified Injured WorkerPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 139.5Rehabilitation UnitTemporary Disability RateRescinded AwardReturned to Trial LevelEn Banc Decision
References
Case No. ADJ1384238 (SAC 0366460)
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

ROSA VIRGEN vs. MACY'S WEST, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES-RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's West's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision not to grant a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found that a late supplemental report alone does not mandate a replacement QME under LC 4062.5 or AD Rule 31.5(a)(12). Granting a replacement QME for untimely supplemental reporting is discretionary and requires a showing of good cause, which Macy's failed to demonstrate. The Appeals Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of replacement panels.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluationPQMEReplacement PanelMedical DirectorTimelinessSupplemental ReportGood CausePrejudice
References
Case No. ADJ3746264 (LBO 0362006)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

TERESA LICEA vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, CRUM FORSTER ORANGE

The applicant, Teresa Licea, was awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits from February 2, 2006, to September 5, 2006, with the defendant estopped from denying her qualified injured worker status. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the estoppel issue was not properly raised or litigated. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken due to the significant legal issue surrounding the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 and its effect on vocational rehabilitation benefits awarded after January 1, 2009. The Board desires to address this threshold jurisdictional question and allow the parties and judge to consider relevant en banc decisions.

Vocational rehabilitationEstoppelQualified injured workerSupplemental Findings and AwardPetition for reconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 139.5RepealEn banc decisionRescinded
References
Case No. ADJ2046608 (VNO 0502368)
Regular
Mar 07, 2012

NOE PEREZ vs. HERRICK CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Herrick Corporation's Petition for Removal, rescinding a WCJ order. The Board is now intending to dismiss Herrick's Petition for Contribution against SCIF. This is because Herrick's contribution claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5500.5(e). The Order Approving Compromise and Release was dated August 31, 2006, and Herrick's petition was filed over two and a half years later.

Petition for RemovalContributionCarve-out JurisdictionLabor Code Sections 3201.53201.7State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF)Alexander BuggyCompromise and ReleaseArbitratorJoint and Several Award
References
Case No. ADJ3730512 (FRE 0210105)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Roy Dettling vs. MERCED COMMUNITY COLLEGE, JT2 INTEGRATED SAN RAMON

In *Dettling v. Merced Community College*, the Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on January 1, 2009, terminated all pending and non-final vocational rehabilitation claims. Because the applicant's VRMA award was not final before the repeal, his right to these benefits was extinguished. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings not involving VRMA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationLabor Code § 139.5Qualified Injured WorkerVRMAWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyRepealNon-finalVested Rights
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,539 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