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. 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case concerns an injured worker's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benefits after Labor Code section 139.5 was repealed effective January 1, 2009.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 The Board rescinded the prior award and vacated the Rehabilitation Unit's determination.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
1
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 The Board rescinded the previous award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, citing the need to address the impact of the repeal of Section 139.5 and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
1
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
0
Case No. ADJ994369
Regular
Jan 19, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a decision that awarded the applicant medical mileage and a penalty for unreasonable delay in compensation payments but denied attorney's fees. The WCAB believes attorney's fees are warranted under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the payment of awarded compensation. The case is being returned to the trial level for the judge to determine and award these attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Mileage Expense ReimbursementAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Industrial InjuryPulmonary System Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3846659 (VNO0418631) ADJ4148234 (VNO0456818)
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MICHELE SHELMAN vs. OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CIGA For Reliance In Liquidation, Administered By SEDGWICK

The applicant's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was denied reconsideration. This is because Labor Code section 139.5, which authorized these benefits, was repealed effective December 31, 2008. The applicant's right to these benefits had not vested before the repeal, as the Rehabilitation Unit's decision was still subject to appeal. Consequently, the repeal extinguished the applicant's inchoate rights to vocational rehabilitation services.

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Repeal of statuteVesting of rightsInchoate rightsFinal judgmentRehabilitation UnitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedBoganim
References
7
Case No. ADJ3871921 (VNO 0465854) ADJ1014317 (VNO 0465855) ADJ904688 (VNO 0385116)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

YOLANDA CASANOVA vs. NORCO DELIVERY SERVICES, CAMBRIDGE PASADENA, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS FRESNO, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION in liquidation and administered through BROADSPIRE on behalf of CIGA, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over vocational rehabilitation benefits after the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. The defendant argues the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction for benefits awarded after the repeal. The WCAB granted reconsideration to align with its en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which addresses the jurisdictional impact of the statutory repeal. The Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings pending the *Weiner* decision.

Labor Code Section 139.5Vocational RehabilitationJurisdictionRepealReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionAmicus CuriaeRetroactive Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ187153 (AHM 0108802), ADJ2066706 (AHM 0108887)
Regular
May 18, 2009

BEVERLY PHILLIPS vs. WESTERN DIGITAL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an appeal regarding vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits awarded after Labor Code Section 139.5 was repealed. The defendant argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction due to the repeal, and the applicant was not a qualified injured worker. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to await a binding en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company* on the jurisdictional impact of the repeal. The current award was rescinded and returned to the trial level pending that precedent-setting decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceLabor Code Section 139.5RepealJurisdictionQualified Injured WorkerReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyAmicus Briefs
References
1
Case No. ADJ4386818 (SAL 0091744) ADJ2744571 (SAL 0087231)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

SUSAN FERGUSON vs. MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB; SEDGWICK CMS, Administered By CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Susan Ferguson's reconsideration, affirming that her right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was barred by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5. The Board found her rights did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the repeal, citing precedent from *Weiner v. Ralph's Company* and *Beverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Boganim)*. These decisions established that VRMA rights terminate upon repeal unless a final appellate decision exists, which Ferguson lacked. Therefore, the WCJ lacked jurisdiction after January 1, 2009, to grant VRMA benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code Section 139.5Vesting of RightsSavings ClauseSection 5502(b)(3)En Banc DecisionsWeiner v. Ralph's CompanyBeverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. AHM 108812 AHM 108813 AHM 108814
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

OLIVIA ZAVALA vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

This case involves an award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful defense against the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the Board to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel's services. The applicant's attorney requested $5,171.89, but both parties ultimately stipulated to a total of $5,000.00 for attorney's fees and appellate costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealStipulationAppellate CostsMetropolitan Water DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Jun 11, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board holds that the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, effective January 1, 2009, terminated any non-final rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services. The WCAB lost jurisdiction over these claims unless the rights were vested through a final order issued before the repeal date.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealvested rightsinchoate rightssaving clauseghost statutesjurisdictionfinal judgmentstatutory repeal
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 8,869 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