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. ADJ17550375; ADJ17550386
Regular
Jul 29, 2025

JOHN RICHARD SEDANO vs. LIVE ACTION GENERAL ENGINEERING INC.; NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a 'Findings of Fact, Award & Order' (F&A) issued on March 24, 2025, by a WCJ, and issued a Notice of Intent to impose sanctions. The WCJ had found that the defendant did not provide a bona fide offer of modified duty to the applicant, John Richard Sedano, and awarded temporary disability. Defendant argued that temporary disability should not have been awarded because an offer of work was made, the award lacked substantial medical evidence, and the WCJ failed to apply apportionment under Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The WCAB affirmed the March 24, 2025 F&A and imposed sanctions of $750.00$ jointly and severally against the employer, insurer, administrator, and their attorneys for errors in the petition for reconsideration, including failure to cite the evidentiary record, improperly attaching documents, raising new issues, and citing non-existent legal authority. The Board also found the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting the modified work offer as a bar to temporary disability, and that the modified work offer was independently invalid due to a conflict in medical restrictions.

Temporary DisabilityModified DutyBona Fide OfferApportionmentLabor Code Sections 4663Labor Code Sections 4664SanctionsEquitable EstoppelMaximum Medical ImprovementWork Restrictions
References
10
Case No. VNO 523244
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

ANGIE JAUREGUI vs. MERCY SOUTHWEST HOSPITAL

This case involves an employer seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award for an injured nurse. The employer argued their modified work offer should have reduced the permanent disability award, but the Board denied reconsideration. The Board determined the employer's work offer was not a bona fide modified work offer, and thus did not qualify for the statutory reduction.

Permanent and stationaryMedical-legal reportWork restrictionsModified workAlternative workLabor Code Section 4658(d)Permanent disability awardPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ8869367
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

LUIS CENDEJAS vs. AMERICAN LABOR POOL, INC., OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that they made a valid offer of modified work, relieving them of temporary disability obligations. However, the Board affirmed the judge's finding that the work offers were not sufficiently clear, lacked specificity regarding physical appropriateness, and failed to convey the exact terms to the applicant. Consequently, the employer did not meet their burden of proving a valid offer of modified work was made.

Petition for ReconsiderationModified Work OfferTemporary DisabilityPhysical AppropriatenessDoctor's RestrictionsVocational RehabilitationSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherOffer ValidityCommunication of OfferEmployer's Burden of Proof
References
2
Case No. ADJ10937376
Regular
Jun 17, 2019

FRANCISCA RODRIGUEZ vs. RUBIO’S RESTAURANTS, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's award of temporary disability indemnity. The Board found that defendant offered applicant modified work within her restrictions on October 13, 2017, and applicant acknowledged receiving this offer but did not respond. Given applicant's resignation and the unanswered offer of modified work, the Board determined she was not entitled to temporary disability from October 11, 2018, and continuing.

Temporary disability indemnityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardmodified workindustrial injuryneck injurythoracic spine injuryright shoulder injuryright elbow injurywrist injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ11278893
Regular
May 24, 2019

JOHN RESPASS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision that the employer offered the applicant modified work. The majority found the employer's supervisor's testimony credible over the applicant's regarding accommodations for his work restrictions, noting that modified duty issues do not always require expert testimony. A dissenting commissioner argued that insufficient medical and vocational evidence existed to determine if the offered work was compatible with the applicant's restrictions. The dissent advocated for further development of the record to ensure substantial justice.

Modified dutyCredibility determinationLay testimonySwivel chairSwiveling tableSelf-modifyWork restrictionsCumulative trauma injuryTemporary disabilityVocational expert
References
7
Case No. ADJ8442625
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

PATRICIA TILLMAN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION PAROLE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an award of increased permanent disability benefits for applicant Patricia Tillman. The Board found that while the employer did not offer modified work within 60 days of the P&S date, the applicant had returned to her regular duties, and the employer had complied with the statute's intent. The Board also amended the applicant's permanent and stationary date to March 17, 2014, based on a psychological AME's report. Finally, the Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to a discount on benefits as she had not been offered modified work and had lost time from work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)Permanent and Stationary DateAgreed Medical ExaminerMedical Improvement (MMI)ApportionmentParole AgentIndustrial Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ3134805 (BAK 0148440)
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

VELGRACE SMITH vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

This case concerns a defendant seeking reconsideration of a decision that awarded a 15% increase in permanent disability indemnity payments. The administrative law judge (WCJ) found the employer failed to offer modified work within 60 days of the applicant's condition becoming permanent and stationary, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ's literal interpretation of the statute would lead to absurd consequences given the retroactive nature of medical findings and delayed service of reports. The Board held the 60-day period begins when the employer has knowledge of both the permanent and stationary status and work restrictions, and remanded the case to determine if the employer's modified work offer remained consistent with updated restrictions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityModified WorkLabor Code Section 4658(d)AggravationCumulative InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary DateWork Restrictions
References
3
Case No. ADJ9818457
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

MANU TUIVAI vs. LINKS ELECTRICAL SERVICE, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY

The applicant sustained a low back injury and was offered modified work by the employer. The applicant declined the modified work, asserting it was too far and beyond his qualifications. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant declined the modified work for reasons other than physical inability, specifically due to commuting distance and pay concerns, which did not preclude temporary disability benefits. The Board found the commuting distance reasonable given the applicant's electrician profession.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicant Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryElectricianLow Back InjuryModified WorkTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4658.1Reasonable Commuting DistanceVoluntary Decline of Work
References
2
Case No. ADJ12394877
Regular
Dec 14, 2020

SABINA RAMOS vs. GLOBAL FOOD SERVICES, FEDERAL INSURANCE

The applicant was injured and subsequently offered modified work within her restrictions, which she initially performed. However, the applicant then abandoned her employment after suitable modified work was provided by the employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that she was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity due to job abandonment. This denial is based on legal precedent that an employee may be estopped from claiming temporary disability for periods where they refuse or abandon suitable modified work without good cause.

Modified workAbandonment of workTemporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationCredibility determinationsPrimary treating physicianWork restrictionsLabor Code section 4062EstoppelOdd lot doctrine
References
0
Case No. ADJ8270156
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

JORGE PRECIADO vs. ALAMILLO REBAR, INC.; OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE

This case involves an employer seeking reconsideration of an award of temporary disability indemnity to the applicant for an industrial injury. The employer argued that the medical evidence was insufficient and that the applicant was estopped from claiming benefits due to refusing modified work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report which credited the applicant's testimony that he was not offered suitable modified work. The Board emphasized that an applicant may be estopped from receiving benefits only if they refuse suitable modified work without good cause, and the judge's credibility determination was given great weight.

Temporary disability indemnityQualified medical evaluatorSubstantial medical evidenceEstoppelModified workOdd lot doctrineHealing periodCredibility determinationsPetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 8,662 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