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. ADJ7723776
Regular
Nov 02, 2013

DEBRA CALORA vs. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the original award. The WCJ had found the applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability and was entitled to a 15% increase in indemnity under Labor Code section 4658(d) for the employer's failure to offer work. However, the Board determined that Labor Code section 4658(d)'s provisions, including the 15% increase, do not apply to awards of 100% permanent disability. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the 15% increase in permanent disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCookRight upper extremityBilateral carpal tunnelPermanent disabilityLabor Code section 4658(d)Permanent total disabilityLifetime award
References
0
Case No. ADJ6413657
Regular
Feb 26, 2009

LUIS PENA vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA

The City of Santa Rosa sought reconsideration of a Stipulated Award that adjusted permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658(d) starting March 25, 2008. The Board denied the petition, finding the employer's argument that the 15% reduction applied retroactively to all payments was erroneous. The employer failed to comply with statutory requirements for providing notice of permanent disability status and commencing timely payments after temporary disability ended. Consequently, the employer is not entitled to the benefit of the Labor Code section 4658(d) reduction due to its own statutory non-compliance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStipulated AwardPermanent Disability IndemnityLabor Code section 4658(d)Police OfficerIndustrial InjuryLow BackPermanent and StationaryOffer of Regular WorkLabor Code section 4061
References
1
Case No. ADJ7852424, ADJ7938790
Regular
Mar 24, 2015

KEITH RAKONCZA vs. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by the defendant regarding a workers' compensation award for Keith Rakoncza. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report which found that the defendant's arguments regarding apportionment and the applicability of Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) were unfounded. The judge found that the defendant's attempt to apportion disability retroactively was unjust and not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the judge determined that Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) applied because the defendant failed to make a timely offer of work within 60 days of the applicant's permanent and stationary date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith RakonczaCounty of StanislausYork Risk Services GroupInc.ADJ7852424ADJ7938790Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)heart injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ8062477
Regular
Apr 08, 2025

ANTONIO MARTINEZ vs. BARODA FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Antonio Martinez sustained an industrial injury to his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine while working for Baroda Farms, resulting in a 66% permanent partial disability award. Defendant Zenith Insurance Company petitioned for reconsideration of the initial Findings and Award (F&A) concerning apportionment and the application of Labor Code section 4658(d). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the F&A but amending it to defer the issues of Labor Code section 4658(d) and attorney fees. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure all parties receive due process.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4658(d)Substantial Medical EvidencePQMEMedical OpinionReasonable Medical Probability
References
8
Case No. ADJ608971 (SAC 0345754)
Regular
Mar 22, 2010

ROGELIO ROJAS vs. ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES INC, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involved a dispute over a 15% increase in permanent disability benefits for an employee who sustained a 100% permanent disability. The defendant argued this increase, under Labor Code section 4658(d), did not apply to total permanent disability awards and challenged the retroactive date for annual wage adjustments. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the 15% increase because Labor Code section 4658(d) applies only to permanent disability awards calculated under a specific chart, not to total permanent disability. The Board affirmed the annual wage adjustment date based on precedent and deferred attorney fees pending recalculation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRogelio RojasAllied Waste Industries IncAmerican Home AssuranceFindings Award and Orderpermanent disabilitypermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)state average weekly wageSAWW adjustment
References
3
Case No. ADJ7702084
Regular
Jan 23, 2012

WILLIAM BRAGA vs. CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether the City of Sebastopol is entitled to a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments to William Braga, a fire captain who sustained hearing loss. The defendant argues this reduction is permissible under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) because they offered Braga regular work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding the statute inapplicable because Braga lost no time from work and continued his regular duties. The WCAB reasoned that Labor Code section 4658(d) is intended to incentivize employers to return injured workers to employment, a purpose not served when the employee never stopped working.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SebastopolRedwood Empire Municipal Insurance FundFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationFire CaptainCumulative PeriodHearing LossPermanent DisabilityScheduled Rate
References
4
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. ADJ6807374, ADJ6807475
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

CIIRISTINE OSTRANDER vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case involves an employer's failure to provide an injured employee with timely notice of modified or alternative work following a determination of permanent and stationary status. While the employee eventually returned to her regular duties, the employer did not formally offer such positions within the 60-day window mandated by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). Consequently, the employer is not entitled to a 15% decrease in permanent disability payments. However, the Appeals Board found that awarding the employee a 15% increase would elevate form over substance, given the employee's early return to regular work. Therefore, the Board rescinded the original award of a 15% increase and modified the decision to state there is no 15% adjustment under Labor Code section 4658(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristine OstranderCounty of Los Angeles/Sheriff's Departmentindustrial injuryrespiratory systemasthmainternal diseasepermanent disabilitypermanent and stationary (P&S) dateLabor Code section 4658(d)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 08-04-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

W. E. Stephens MFG. Co. v. Howard Goldberg, in His Individual Capacity and D/B/A Supreme Laundry and D & G Investment Company

W.E. Stephens Manufacturing Company (Stephens) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Howard Goldberg, d/b/a Supreme Laundry, and D & G Investment Company (D & G). Stephens, a garment manufacturer, contracted with Tony Flores to assemble and finish garments. Flores sub-contracted the laundering to D & G. When Flores failed to pay D & G, D & G refused to release garments belonging to Stephens, asserting a lien. Stephens sued D & G for conversion and breach of a bailment contract. D & G claimed a constitutional and statutory lien. The trial court granted summary judgment for D & G. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the garment lien under Section 70.002 of the Texas Property Code did not apply as D & G had returned multiple lots of garments prior to payment, and the contract specified a future time of payment.

Summary JudgmentConversionBailment ContractGarment LienPossessory LienTexas Property CodeContract LawAppellate ReviewRemandSubcontractor
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 13,094 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