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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ2255750 (LAO 0803099)
Regular
Sep 14, 2009

RAQUEL ZUNIGA vs. RADIO SHACK, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and awarded attorney's fees for services in obtaining vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found that the applicant's attorney was entitled to a fee calculated as 15% of the *new money* awarded in the Rehabilitation Unit's Determination and Order, not the total VRMA amount. Because the defendant failed to withhold any funds for attorney fees despite knowing the applicant was represented, the defendant was ordered to pay the awarded attorney's fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRaquel ZunigaRadio ShackLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ2255750Attorney FeesVocational RehabilitationQualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeDetermination and OrderRehabilitation Unit
References
Case No. ADJ1898212 (LAO 0671427) ADJ957820 (LAO 0688269)
Regular
Oct 07, 2008

SAMSON BOGANIM vs. BEVERLY HILLS HILTON, HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed a prior award finding the applicant entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance. The applicant sustained industrial injuries to his neck and back, and a hernia, resulting in a combined permanent disability of 9.25%. The defendant's appeal was denied, upholding the finding that the applicant was a qualified injured worker entitled to benefits.

BoganimBeverly Hills HiltonHilton Hotels Corporationvocational rehabilitation maintenance allowancetemporary disability ratequalified rehabilitation representativesecurity guardsupervisorcumulative injuryindustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ3735030 (LAO 0804978) ADJ1855956 (LAO 0804979)
Regular
Apr 10, 2013

NATALIE KIDD vs. INLAND GLOBAL MEDICAL GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Natalie Kidd's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation services after her 2001 injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the Rehabilitation Unit's 2008 Determination to be a final, unappealed order. This vested Kidd's right to vocational rehabilitation benefits, overriding the subsequent repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. Consequently, Kidd is entitled to retroactive and ongoing VRMA at the temporary disability rate, with specific adjustments for periods of interrupt status and receipt of medical temporary disability.

Vocational RehabilitationVRMAQualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeQRRRehabilitation UnitDeterminationFindings Award OrderFA&OPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ3867236 (LAO 0817551)
Regular
Jan 20, 2012

RODNEY LIDDELL vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION, Permissibly Self-Insured c/o INTERCARE INSURANCE

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding applicant entitled to vocational rehabilitation services and VRMA. The defendant argued that jurisdiction had expired and no procedural framework existed for completing a vocational rehabilitation plan. However, the Board found the defendant failed to comply with interruption notice requirements, thereby preserving the applicant's right to services. The Board suggested parties agree to a QRR or return to the WCJ for dispute resolution, confirming an adequate framework remains.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardVocational RehabilitationVRMALabor Code Section 5410Rehabilitation UnitQualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeAdministrative Director Rule 9813Interruption Notice
References
Case No. OAK 0284985
Regular
Oct 10, 2007

RICHARD DENNY vs. PINKERTON, ACE USA/ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found Richard Denny's employer, Pinkerton, liable for Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) at the medical temporary disability rate outside the vocational rehabilitation cap. This liability arose from Pinkerton's violation of Labor Code §4642 and related regulations by failing to timely refer the applicant for vocational rehabilitation services after determining him to be a Qualified Injured Worker. The Board affirmed that this VRMA award is not considered a penalty and rejected Pinkerton's claim for restitution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPinkertonACE USA/ESISPetition for ReconsiderationVRMAMedical TD RateVocational Rehabilitation CapLabor Code §4642Cal.CodeRegs.tit. 8
References
Case No. SFO 0500209
Regular
Jul 01, 2008

LAVENDER GALVAO vs. KINKO'S, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the prior award to allow the employer a credit against Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) for wages earned by the applicant from subsequent employment. While the applicant was found to be a Qualified Injured Worker (QIW) entitled to vocational rehabilitation services and VRMA, the Board distinguished this case from *Gamble v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding that the applicant's subsequent employment replaced her injured position rather than being concurrent. Therefore, allowing the credit prevents the applicant from receiving a windfall and is consistent with the wage-loss basis of temporary disability indemnity.

Qualified Injured WorkerVocational Rehabilitation ServicesVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMATemporary Disability RateCredit for Wages EarnedWage Loss BasisRehabilitation UnitFindings Order AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ3097538 (SFO 0446365) ADJ2535723 (SFO 0482694)
Regular
Oct 13, 2009

YOLANDA ORTIZ vs. UCSF STANFORD HEALTH CARE, CIGA, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES INC.

The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision, amending it to clarify that VRMA continues until applicant meets with a QRR. The court addressed the effect of the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on applicant's vocational rehabilitation benefits.

CIGAVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceRehabilitation UnitVesting of RightsLabor Code Section 139.5Timeliness of AppealFinal DeterminationQualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeInchoate RightsStatutory Repeal
References
Case No. ADJ1629575 (MON 0296496)
Regular
Oct 06, 2008

SCOTT BICKLEY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's decision, finding applicant was not entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the delay rate. The Board reasoned that no delay in VRMA provision occurred as applicant declined services at the initial meeting, negating the applicability of Labor Code section 4642. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to the claimed VRMA payments from February 7, 2006, to September 5, 2007.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMADelay RateLabor Code Section 4642Qualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeQRRVocational Rehabilitation ServicesRetroactive PaymentsSettlement
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,656 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