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. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. ADJ3435344 (OAK 0335356), ADJ6942722
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

CHARLES KESECKER vs. MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding Labor Code section 4850 benefits but granted the defendant's petition regarding the Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to set aside the Compromise and Release agreement. However, it reversed the finding of a Labor Code section 132a violation, holding the employer's mandatory psychological fitness exam was a lawful requirement for peace officers, not discriminatory based on the industrial nature of the injury. Consequently, the $10,000 award for discrimination and associated attorney's fees were vacated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4850Industrial InjuryPsycheHypertension
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
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
2
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
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
5
Case No. ADJ10738767; ADJ14240277; ADJ14240278
Regular
Jun 18, 2025

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

Applicant Jeanette France sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, which had found that she failed to prove discrimination under Labor Code section 132a following her termination. The Appeals Board granted France's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board concluded that the defendant, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, violated Labor Code section 132a by discharging France on February 1, 2017. This decision was based on France establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and the defendant failing to provide substantial evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination, despite allegations of poor performance.

Labor Code Section 132adiscriminationretaliationterminationindustrial injuryprima facie caseburden of proofpretextbusiness realitiesemergency hire
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. OAK 301894 OAK 314306
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

ROXANNE HENDRIX vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns an employee terminated due to exhausting paid leave after an industrial injury, which she alleged was discriminatory under Labor Code section 132a. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer acted in accordance with Education Code section 45192. This specific education code provision, which mandates placing employees who exhaust leave on a reemployment list, supersedes the general anti-discrimination provisions of section 132a in this context.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurycustodianterminationpaid leavetemporary disabilityreemployment listEducation Code section 45192
References
6
Case No. ADJ8887982
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

ALVARO VIRGEN vs. COSTA VIEW FARM 2, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions imposed on attorney Kyle K. Neilsen under Labor Code § 5813. Neilsen's apology for contemptuous remarks about a Workers' Compensation Judge was deemed insufficient as he continued to justify his behavior. The Board found his attempt to excuse his actions indicated a lack of appreciation for the severity of his offense. Consequently, Neilsen was ordered to pay $950.00 in sanctions to the General Fund.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsLabor Code § 5813WCJ EllisContemptuous statementsJustificationFrustrationPleadingTravelOrange County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,006 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