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. RIV 0027402, RIV 0064770
Regular
Jun 02, 2008

DELIA BEJARANO vs. Riverside Community Hospital, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY C/O BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE C/O BROADSPIRE CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the trial judge's decision, and remanded the case, finding no final agreement on settlement terms was reached between the parties. The applicant signed a compromise and release, but a subsequent addendum unilaterally introduced by one defendant, altering contribution and lien responsibilities, was not agreed upon by all parties. Therefore, no enforceable settlement existed, and the case was returned for further proceedings.

COMPROMISE AND RELEASEMANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCEADDENDUM CUNILATERAL MODIFICATIONMEETING OF THE MINDSSETTLEMENT AUTHORITYTENTATIVE AGREEMENTLIABILITY AND CONTRIBUTIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5001FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ295449 (EUR 0039208)
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

LISA CASAGRANDE vs. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to partially reverse the WCJ's decision, affirming the award of Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) but rescinding the Labor Code section 5814 penalty on VRMA and attorney's fees under section 5814.5. While the Board agreed VRMA was owed due to changed circumstances, it found the employer's delay was not unreasonable, thus negating grounds for penalties or additional fees. The Board also upheld the allowance of the Employment Development Department's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Employment Development Department (EDD) lienmodified employmentRU-94RU-105unreasonable delaychanged circumstances
References
Case No. ADJ1446117 [AHM 0083068] ADJ2847827 [AHM 0083069 ADJ2200225 [AHM 0083070]
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

CHERYL GRAY vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's June 17, 2008 order and returning the matter for further proceedings to determine whether rehabilitation attorney fees are appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAttorney's FeeRehabilitation ServicesVocational RehabilitationRU-122SettlementLC § 4646 (b)Joint Award
References
Case No. ADJ4459609 (RDG 0084433) ADJ165897 (RDG 0084432) ADJ350688 (VNO 0548588)
Regular
Aug 13, 2009

BILLY EPPS vs. TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant denied vocational rehabilitation benefits by the WCJ. The applicant argued the Rehabilitation Unit's (RU) delay constituted nonfeasance and deliberate indifference, entitling him to benefits despite the repeal of the relevant statute. The Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of RU misconduct. The Board also highlighted the applicant's own significant delays in pursuing his claim, which prejudiced his ability to secure benefits before the law changed.

Vocational Rehabilitation BenefitsRehabilitation Unit (RU)NonfeasanceDeliberate IndifferenceWanton DisregardDue ProcessReckless ActionsQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code Section 139.5Petition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ1600212 (LAO 0809682) ADJ1686620 (LAO 0809668)
Regular
Dec 07, 2010

SERGIO CERVANTES vs. LODARCY MASSE CONSTRUCTION, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a finding that the defendant's appeal of a Rehabilitation Unit determination was untimely. The Board found the appeal timely because the defendant's counsel was not properly served with the RU's decision. Consequently, the applicant's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was barred by the January 1, 2009 repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, as the applicant's rights had not vested before the repeal. The decision affirmed the WCJ's findings on permanent disability and earnings in all other respects.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryGroinBackPermanent DisabilityVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Rehabilitation Unit (RU) DeterminationTimeliness of AppealDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ769963 (VNO 0196669)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

GEORGE GIO vs. RAY WANG also known as CHING WANG, RAYMOND LLORENS also known as THOMAS STRONG, doing business as RAYMCO BUILDERS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking enforcement of a Rehabilitation Unit (RU) determination for vocational rehabilitation benefits and retroactive VRMA, issued on December 31, 2008. The WCJ initially found the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to enforce the RU determination, which was issued after the critical January 1, 2009, deadline for WCAB jurisdiction over such matters. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because it was improperly made at a Mandatory Settlement Conference over the applicant's objection. The case is remanded for a new hearing before a different WCJ to address the substantive issue of enforceability.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceEnforceabilityJurisdictionRescinded DecisionReassignmentLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesDeclaration of Readiness
References
Case No. ADJ2748573
Regular
May 11, 2009

THOMAS HERNON vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the prior finding on the applicant's occupational group number from 560 to 380 (painter), based on evidence of the applicant's actual job duties. The Board also modified the decision regarding apportionment, accepting the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion that 10% of the disability should be apportioned to pre-existing degenerative disease. However, the Board affirmed the application of the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, as temporary disability payments were terminated before January 1, 2005, triggering notice requirements. Ultimately, the applicant's permanent disability was reduced to 63% after apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardApplicantDefendantPublic Service WorkerOccupational Group NumberIndustrial InjuryLow BackNeck
References
Case No. ADJ584782 AHM 0114457
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

James Green vs. Ralph's Grocery Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if Ralph's Grocery Company's appeal of a Rehabilitation Unit order was timely. The Board found the appeal was timely because the defendant received the order on July 3, 2008, and filed their appeal on July 10, 2008. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order, finding Ralph's Grocery Company is not liable for vocational rehabilitation services or maintenance allowance. This decision is based on the applicant's right to such benefits expiring on January 1, 2009.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalph's Grocery CompanyPermissibly Self-InsuredVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Vocational Rehabilitation ServicesRehabilitation Unit (RU)Decision and Order (D&O)LachesLabor Code section 139.5Timeliness of Appeal
References
Case No. ADJ1416753 [LAO 0854978] ADJ3901109 [LAO 0854977]
Regular
Sep 17, 2008

GLADIS RODRIGUEZ vs. HMS HOST, ACE USA

The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the July 3, 2008 Findings and Award, and returned the matter for further proceedings due to an inadequate trial record and unresolved issues regarding applicant's entitlement to VRMA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Temporary Disability Indemnity (TDI)Rehabilitation Unit (RU)Qualified Injured Worker (QIW)Modified Work OfferLabor Code Section 4644Admitted Industrial Injury
References
Case No. AHM 0099560 AHM 0099539 AHM 0099552 AHM 0099611 AHM 0099625 AHM 0099626 AHM 0102769
Regular
Oct 16, 2007

CHERILYNN H. CAIRNS vs. CON AGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, establishing that the applicant is entitled to Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) at the temporary disability rate. This VRMA is payable from November 16, 2006, onward, a date determined by the applicant's unequivocal demand for vocational rehabilitation services. The Board clarified that prior stipulations did not obligate payment from an earlier date, as VRMA is contingent upon an employee's willingness to participate in rehabilitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Temporary Total Disability (TTD) rateFindings Award and OrderRehabilitation Unit (RU)Stipulation and OrderGastric Bypass SurgeryPermanent and Stationary ReportLabor Code section 139.5(c)
References
Showing 1-10 of 11 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