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. 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 The Appeals Board granted France's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous Findings and Award, and substituted new findings.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. ADJ10021120 ADJ8949346
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

ANTHONY BERNARD EDWARDS (Dec'd), CANDACE EDWARDS (Widow), ASHLEY EDWARDS (Daughter), ANTHONY EDWARDS, JR. (Son) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves a workers' compensation death benefit claim for Anthony Bernard Edwards, who died in the course of his employment. The dependents seek death benefits and burial expenses, which were initially awarded by the WCJ. The employer, City of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration, arguing it should receive credit for a third-party settlement the dependents obtained from Kaiser Permanente. The Board agreed to reconsider the issue of credit, specifically whether Civil Code section 3333.1 bars such credit. The Board ultimately deferred the credit issue, affirming the death benefit award and returning the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of Civil Code section 3333.1 and potential employer negligence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ10021120ADJ8949346death benefitsLabor Code section 4702burial expensesCivil Code section 3333.1Medical Injury Compensation Reform ActMICRAthird-party settlement
References
15
Case No. ADJ17819410; ADJ17819411
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

GUILHERME GUIMARAES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK

Defendant County of Los Angeles sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award issued on March 18, 2025, by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ had ruled that applicant Guilherme Guimaraes was entitled to separate salary continuation benefits under Labor Code section 4850 for two distinct injuries, even if some periods of disability overlapped. The defendant contended that the WCJ erred in awarding a separate period of benefits, arguing that the existence of common body parts between claims should disqualify the applicant from additional benefits once the initial 52 weeks were paid. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, after reviewing the arguments and the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reasoning, emphasizing that entitlement to Section 4850 benefits is determined by the time period and reason for disability per claim, consistent with wage replacement policy, rather than merely by overlapping body parts.

Labor Code section 4850Salary continuation benefitsCumulative traumaSpecific injuryOverlapping disabilityConcurrent disabilityWage replacementTemporary total disabilityFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.Joint Findings and Award
References
4
Case No. ADJ2570253
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

SHIRLEY KING vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Shirley King's Petition for Reconsideration regarding her medical mileage claim. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) findings, which found the applicant lacked credibility due to apparent willful dishonesty about her residence. However, the Board returned the case to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the employer's request for sanctions under Labor Code section 5813. The WCJ will address sanctions because the alleged misconduct occurred during proceedings before them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLabor Code section 5813sanctionswillful dishonestycredibilityAgreed Medical ExaminerStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent partial disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. ADJ3724129 (VNO 0414129) ADJ1154072 (VNO 0414130)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

William Young vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied William Young's petition for reconsideration, upholding a judge's decision to deny penalties for the City of Los Angeles' delay in authorizing spinal surgery. The Board agreed that Labor Code section 5814(c) barred the penalty claim due to applicant's failure to properly preserve the issue. While a concurring opinion found the defendant's 32-month delay and failure to comply with statutory obligations sanctionable under Labor Code section 5813, the majority denied reconsideration. Therefore, the applicant's request for sanctions and attorney fees was ultimately unsuccessful.

Labor Code section 5814(c)unreasonable delayspinal surgerypenaltyLabor Code section 5813attorney feesLabor Code section 5814.5Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderWCJ
References
6
Case No. VNO 113665 VNO 113666 VNO 113667 VNO 113668
Regular
Aug 06, 2007

MARIA A. GARCIA vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES LIBRARY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a WCJ's award of penalties and attorney fees against the City of Los Angeles for delayed payment of home healthcare charges. The Board found that while payments were delayed, Labor Code section 5814(e) bars penalties when the only dispute concerns the payment of a provider's bill, not a denial of treatment. Furthermore, the Board found no basis to assess penalties under Labor Code section 5814.6 for a pattern of business practice violation.

Labor Code 5814Labor Code 5814.5Labor Code 5814.6unreasonable delayhome health carebilling disputemedical treatmentnursing servicespenaltyattorney fees
References
3
Case No. ADJ3347998 (LAO 0774299)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

JOSEPH JONES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's finding of employment for applicant Joseph Jones. Defendant County of Los Angeles argued applicant was not a volunteer, thus not an employee. The Board found applicant's testimony indicated he felt compelled to work as a trustee due to threat of transfer, not voluntary agreement, negating an employment relationship under Labor Code section 3351. Furthermore, applicant did not qualify under Penal Code section 4017 as he was awaiting trial and not engaged in fire suppression activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoseph JonesCounty of Los AngelesSheriff's DepartmentTristarFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Employment RelationshipVolunteerInmate
References
2
Case No. ADJ12849972
Regular
May 19, 2025

Mimi Htut vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Mimi Htut against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Board found the petition to be untimely, having been filed on March 13, 2025, which was more than 30 days after the Findings of Fact and Award was served on December 31, 2024, despite an extension period for out-of-state recipients. Furthermore, the Board stated that even if the petition had met the jurisdictional time limits, it would have been denied on the merits, as the administrative law judge's reliance on reports from the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Brian Jacks, was considered substantial medical evidence. This decision also highlighted recent amendments to Labor Code section 5909 concerning the Appeals Board's 60-day timeframe for acting on reconsideration petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)TransmissionNoticeReport and RecommendationFindings of Fact and Award (F&A)Jurisdictional
References
13
Case No. ADJ198279 (VNO 0510947) ADJ3495790 (VNO 0506075)
Regular
May 04, 2009

MICHAEL BONNER vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; permissibly self-insured, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves a firefighter, Michael Bonner, seeking workers' compensation benefits. The defendant, City of Los Angeles, sought reconsideration of a prior award granting temporary disability (TD) benefits and a penalty for unreasonable delay. The Appeals Board denied the reconsideration, holding that Labor Code section 4850 salary continuation benefits for firefighters are distinct from temporary disability and do not count against the two-year TD limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). The Board affirmed the penalty, finding the City's attempt to conflate these benefits to limit TD payments unreasonable.

Labor Code section 4850Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disabilitysalary continuationInjury on Duty (IOD) timefirefighterCity of Los Angelescollective bargaining agreementWCJpetition for reconsideration
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,860 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