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. 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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. 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. ADJ4604540 (VNO 0382502)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

DOREEN JONES vs. DAVID & BARBARA SALKIN, ITT SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award. The WCJ had awarded vocational rehabilitation services and maintenance allowance at a delayed rate, plus penalties and interest, based on a final Rehabilitation Unit determination. However, the Board found that the WCJ exceeded the scope of the issues presented at the hearing, denying the defendant due process. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for clarification and proper adjudication of all outstanding issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMAJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation JudgeWCJRehabilitation UnitDue ProcessJurisdiction
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. ADJ1509936 (MON 0335614) ADJ1185943 (MON 0335615) ADJ1317308 (MON 0335616)
Regular
May 08, 2009

LINDA ROSENBERG vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking vocational rehabilitation benefits denied by the WCJ. The applicant argues the benefits should extend beyond July 30, 2007, due to the employer's failure to provide timely notice. The Board granted reconsideration to address the applicability of the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on the WCJ's jurisdiction to award benefits after the repeal's effective date. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, potentially in light of related en banc decisions. The Board encourages informal resolution of the disputed issues.

Vocational rehabilitationVRMALabor Code Section 139.5Labor Code Section 4636(a)WCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPERMANENT AND STATIONARYREHABILITATION UNITADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGERECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ284173 (ANA 0289120) ADJ2551230 (ANA 0289121)
Regular
Apr 08, 2009

GILDARDO INZUNZA vs. WEBSTER, ET AL.; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

Applicant petitioned for removal, seeking a WCAB order to compel the Rehabilitation Unit to issue a determination regarding rehabilitation benefits. However, Labor Code section 139.5, governing vocational rehabilitation, was repealed effective January 1, 2009, divesting the Rehabilitation Unit of further authority. While issues appealed before that date can be heard by the WCAB, the applicant's petition for removal is denied as it does not meet the procedural requirements for such action before a Workers' Compensation Judge. The applicant should file a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to bring the matter before a judge.

Vocational RehabilitationRehabilitation UnitPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 139.5RepealDWC NewslineDeclaration of ReadinessWCJWCAB Rule 10843Uninsured Employers Fund
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. ADJ2723383
Regular
Oct 13, 2010

DIDIER ROSA vs. XCELSIS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employee seeking vocational rehabilitation services and retroactive benefits after a neck injury. The insurer, SCIF, failed to appeal a Rehabilitation Unit determination that authorized these services and benefits at the "delay rate." Although SCIF argued jurisdiction and statutory repeal issues, the Board affirmed the Unit's determination, finding SCIF waived its defenses by not appealing. However, the Board limited the award of vocational rehabilitation services, finding the right to them was inchoate and expired with legislative changes.

Rehabilitation Unitvocational rehabilitation servicesretroactive benefitsdelay rateghost statutesvested rightsinchoaterepealed statutesLabor Code section 139.5final judgment
References
Case No. ADJ3846659 (VNO0418631) ADJ4148234 (VNO0456818)
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MICHELE SHELMAN vs. OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS, INC.; CIGA For Reliance In Liquidation, Administered By SEDGWICK

The applicant's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits was denied reconsideration. This is because Labor Code section 139.5, which authorized these benefits, was repealed effective December 31, 2008. The applicant's right to these benefits had not vested before the repeal, as the Rehabilitation Unit's decision was still subject to appeal. Consequently, the repeal extinguished the applicant's inchoate rights to vocational rehabilitation services.

Vocational rehabilitationLabor Code section 139.5Repeal of statuteVesting of rightsInchoate rightsFinal judgmentRehabilitation UnitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedBoganim
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,442 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