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. ADJ8577392, ADJ8577393
Regular
Dec 26, 2014

TERESA MARTINEZ vs. CHELO'S HAIR FASHION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a judge's finding that Teresa Martinez was an employee of Chelo's Hair Fashion, not an independent contractor. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the judge erred in this determination. The Board found that the applicant established a prima facie case of employment, and the defendant failed to present evidence to rebut this presumption. Therefore, the initial finding of employment was upheld.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusBorello FactorsRight of ControlPrima Facie CaseReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHairdresserSalon
References
Case No. ADJ3309906 (FRE 0246859)
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

TIMETHY HURT vs. CITY OF LINDSAY, A.I.M.S. INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision that the City of Lindsay did not violate Labor Code section 132a by terminating his employment. The applicant was terminated for engaging in workplace violence, specifically a fight where he admitted to using a metal pipe. Evidence indicated the termination was based on this violent conduct, which violated city personnel rules, and not for filing a workers' compensation claim, as the claim was filed after his termination. The Board concluded the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Orderworkplace fightself-defensetermination of employmentdiscriminationCity of Lindsayassault with a deadly weaponPenal Code section 245(a)(1)
References
Case No. WCK 0069591
Regular
Apr 24, 2008

JIM WESTON vs. SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The applicant, a firefighter trainee, sought reconsideration of the denial of his discrimination claim under Labor Code section 132a. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the employer did not violate section 132a, as the applicant's termination was due to performance issues and not his industrial knee injury. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his injury, as required by the *Lauher* decision.

Labor Code section 132aprima facie casediscriminationindustrial injuryfirefighterparamedicprobationary firefighteracademy trainingmodified dutyperformance evaluation
References
Case No. AHM 0117948
Regular
Dec 04, 2007

LISA M. WOLFE vs. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior decision, finding that the applicant failed to prove her termination violated Labor Code section 132a. The Board determined the applicant did not show she was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to her industrial injury. Even if a prima facie case were established, the employer's business necessity defense, based on the applicant's extended absence and uncertain return to work, would have prevailed.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminatory terminationbusiness necessity defenseprima facie casereinstatementlost wagespermanent disabilityqualified medical examinationvoice activated softwarerepetitive keyboarding
References
Case No. ADJ10296423
Regular
Jan 30, 2020

SEYED NAVID MOUSAVIRAD vs. LAFAYETTE PARK HOTEL AND SPA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original decision finding no violation of Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence the employer knew about a work-related injury or the intent to file a claim. The applicant was on medical leave for an unrelated condition and terminated after exhausting that leave. The Board clarified that the applicant takes nothing on his claim, rather than it being dismissed on procedural grounds.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimprima facie caselegal rightemployer dutyindustrial injuryadverse consequencesmedical leave
References
Case No. ADJ9986016
Regular
Nov 13, 2019

FABRICIO MARTINEZ vs. EXPERT TRUCKING, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Expert Trucking's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original award. The applicant, Fabricio Martinez, successfully proved his employer terminated him in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The applicant's testimony, which was undisputed, indicated he was told he could not have his job back because he hired an attorney for his workers' compensation claim. The Board found that the applicant did not need to prove his ability to perform the job, entitlement to accommodation, or mitigation of losses to establish a prima facie section 132a claim.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPrima Facie CaseLegal RightLegal Duty
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. ADJ4265919
Regular
Mar 02, 2009

F. GAITAN vs. K&S FARMS, COMP WEST INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury and was subsequently terminated by his employer, K&S Farms, while on temporary disability. The applicant filed a claim alleging discrimination under Labor Code section 132a, arguing the termination was a penalty for his injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found no violation of section 132a. The Board determined the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that his termination was "because of" his industrial injury, as required by law.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationprima facie caseindustrial injurydetrimentdisparate treatmenteconomic justificationbusiness necessitytemporary disabilityreinstatement
References
Case No. STK 0172263, STK 0175293
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

FRANK LIBERINI vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify an award finding the employer violated Labor Code §132a by discriminating against the applicant due to industrial injuries. The WCAB affirmed the original decision but amended it to explicitly include lost job benefits and attorney costs, directing the parties to adjust these amounts with trial level jurisdiction reserved. The employer's petition for reconsideration was deficient for failing to detail the specific grounds and evidence supporting their claims of business necessity and lack of prima facie discrimination.

Labor Code § 132adiscriminatory actionunlawful discriminationjob reinstatementincreased compensationback wagesprima facie casebusiness necessitydisparate treatmentjob benefits
References
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
References
Showing 1-10 of 966 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