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. ADJ8072993
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

VIRGINIA PALACIOS vs. MAXIMUM REALTY, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's earning capacity determination. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found the applicant's earning capacity based on actual wages, including rent-free housing as compensation, not solely on an hourly minimum wage calculation. The WCJ emphasized that earning capacity considers various factors like age, skill, and employment opportunities, not just hours worked at minimum wage. The Board noted that minimum wage issues should be addressed in a different forum and that such adjudication could potentially lead to reopening this case within statutory timeframes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedEarning CapacityMinimum WageApartment ManagerActual EarningsLegal Minimum WageStatutory Time FramesAdjudication
References
Case No. ADJ7750099
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

JERRI USREY vs. SIERRA OAKS SENIOR CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the finding that Sierra Oaks Senior Center violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant Jerri Usrey's employment due to her filing a workers' compensation claim. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning on witness credibility and evidence resolution. However, the determination of reinstatement and lost wages was deferred due to insufficient evidence regarding the availability of suitable work and applicant's ability to perform it. The award of $10,000 for the section 132a violation was affirmed, with further proceedings to address reinstatement and lost wages.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardreinstatementlost wagespoor performanceindustrial injuryadverse treatmentcredibility assessmenttrier of fact
References
Case No. ADJ9427877
Regular
Apr 20, 2020

KARL KURTZ vs. WESCO AIRCRAFT HARDWARE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an employer's termination of an employee while he was on temporary disability due to a back injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the termination violated Labor Code section 132a, finding the employer's stated reasons of relocation and claim denial constituted unlawful discrimination. While the employee is entitled to lost wage reimbursement from June 1, 2016, to October 9, 2018, issues regarding reinstatement and further wage loss remain deferred for further proceedings. The Board also affirmed the finding that the employee's injury was not due to his own serious and willful misconduct.

Labor Code Section 132aserious and willful misconductdiscriminationretaliationreinstatementlost wagestemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityserious and willful misconduct of employeeserious and willful misconduct of employer
References
Case No. ADJ8741812
Regular
May 20, 2019

STEVEN ALFARO vs. AYERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an employer, Ayers Construction Company, accused of discriminating against an employee, Steven Alfaro, for exercising his workers' compensation rights under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant alleged he was terminated shortly after requesting medical treatment, and despite a medical release, was denied reinstatement while other, less senior employees were retained. The Appeals Board affirmed the prior decision finding discrimination, determining the employer failed to provide a credible business necessity for the discharge. The employer must pay increased compensation, back wages and benefits, with adjustments for temporary disability payments received.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationreinstatementincreased compensationback wagesbenefitstemporary disabilitymedical treatment
References
Case No. ADJ14244909
Regular
Apr 25, 2025

YONGQUAN HU vs. AMERICAN ALLIANCE LOGISTICS, INC., LIANG YE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Applicant Yongquan Hu and defendant Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) both petitioned for reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award. The WCJ's initial decision found an industrial injury resulting in permanent total disability and calculated average weekly earnings based on multiple employers. Applicant disputed the wage calculation method, while UEBTF identified an inadvertently omitted week of wages. The Appeals Board granted both petitions, adopting the WCJ's report and amending the decision to reflect corrected average weekly earnings of $1,462.15, leading to a temporary and permanent total disability rate of $974.77 per week.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYongquan HuAmerican Alliance LogisticsInc.Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundAdjudication NumberVan Nuys District OfficeOpinion and OrderGranting Petitions for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
Case No. AHM 0110026
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

SAMUEL C. OROPALLO vs. U.S. FOODSERVICES, INC., LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over an industrial injury and alleged Labor Code section 132a discrimination by U.S. Foodservices. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration but granted the employee's petition. The Board affirmed the original award but deferred the issues of reinstatement, lost wages/benefits, and costs related to the discrimination finding, remanding these to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability IndemnityTransitional ProgramDiscriminationReinstatementLost Wages
References
Case No. STK 175646 STK 175647
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

Shaw vs. Clovis Unified School District

The Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding the employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating the applicant due to her industrial injury. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, and the employer failed to prove a business necessity for her termination, as she was able to perform her job with self-modification and the employer's justification was not supported by evidence available at the time of the termination. Consequently, the employer was ordered to pay increased compensation, lost wages, and benefits, subject to collateral source reductions.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationreinstatementlost wagesbenefitscollateral sourcesprima facie casequalified injured worker (QIW)customary occupationbusiness necessity
References
Case No. ADJ5631403 ADJ8129890 ADJ9031437 ADJ7129072 ADJ8214161
Regular
Aug 12, 2019

VALERIE SPENCER vs. MENDON AND MENDON, INC., dba MENDON'S NURSERY

This case concerns Valerie Spencer's claim that her employer, Mendon and Mendon, Inc., violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating her employment due to her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board rescinded a prior finding, concluding that the employer's actions constituted discrimination under section 132a. This decision was based on the close temporal proximity between the notice of representation and termination, and the employer's failure to establish a legitimate business reason. Issues regarding penalty amounts, lost wages, and reinstatement are deferred for further proceedings.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimTerminationNotice of RepresentationPrima Facie CaseBusiness Realities DefensePretextLost Wages
References
Case No. ADJ7626424
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

ISRAEL LOPEZ vs. LUIS SOUSA DAIRY aka LOUIS T. SOUSA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the employer's alleged violation of Labor Code section 132a and a prior $\$ 2,500$ sanction. Based on the applicant's unrebutted testimony, the Board found the employer terminated the applicant's employment due to his work-related injury, constituting discrimination under section 132a. The Board rescinded the prior sanction order because the judge failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to be heard. Jurisdiction was reserved at the trial level for reinstatement, lost wages, and further sanctions.

Labor Code section 132aLabor Code section 5813discriminationterminationindustrial injuryretaliationunrebutted testimonyWCJreconsiderationsanction
References
Case No. ADJ8217072
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

SANDRA MILLER vs. ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN \& ASSOCIATES

The applicant, Sandra Miller, sought temporary disability benefits following a bus accident. The defendants contested her entitlement, arguing insufficient medical evidence of disability and lack of lost wages. The Appeals Board modified the original award, finding that based on her primary treating physician's reports, Miller was entitled to temporary disability indemnity benefits only from March 26, 2012, to June 20, 2012. The Board rejected entitlement for earlier periods due to a lack of substantial medical evidence supporting disability claims prior to Dr. Barri's reports. The case was returned to the trial level with this amended finding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceLost WagesSummer MonthsRetirementMotor Vehicle Accident
References
Showing 1-10 of 380 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