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. 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 This is because Labor Code section 139.5, which authorized these benefits, was repealed effective December 31, 2008.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
7
Case No. ADJ3871921 (VNO 0465854) ADJ1014317 (VNO 0465855) ADJ904688 (VNO 0385116)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

YOLANDA CASANOVA vs. NORCO DELIVERY SERVICES, CAMBRIDGE PASADENA, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS FRESNO, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION in liquidation and administered through BROADSPIRE on behalf of CIGA, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over vocational rehabilitation benefits after the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. The defendant argues the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction for benefits awarded after the repeal. The WCAB granted reconsideration to align with its en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which addresses the jurisdictional impact of the statutory repeal. The Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings pending the *Weiner* decision.

Labor Code Section 139.5Vocational RehabilitationJurisdictionRepealReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionAmicus CuriaeRetroactive Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ187153 (AHM 0108802), ADJ2066706 (AHM 0108887)
Regular
May 18, 2009

BEVERLY PHILLIPS vs. WESTERN DIGITAL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case involves an appeal regarding vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits awarded after Labor Code Section 139.5 was repealed. The defendant argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction due to the repeal, and the applicant was not a qualified injured worker. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to await a binding en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company* on the jurisdictional impact of the repeal. The current award was rescinded and returned to the trial level pending that precedent-setting decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceLabor Code Section 139.5RepealJurisdictionQualified Injured WorkerReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyAmicus Briefs
References
1
Case No. ADJ4265715
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

ARNIE K. RAGLAND vs. METROPOLITAN PROVISION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed. The applicant's entitlement to VRMA from a specific date forward was established by a Rehabilitation Unit Determination that became final before the repeal. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination. Therefore, the applicant's right to VRMA from the date of the final Determination vested before the statute's repeal.

VRMAVocational RehabilitationVested RightLabor Code 139.5RepealRehabilitation UnitDeterminationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ3704328
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

WILLIAM HENDERSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES COMMERCE

This case concerns an injured worker's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benefits after Labor Code section 139.5 was repealed effective January 1, 2009. The Appeals Board found that because the worker's right to benefits had not vested by a final order before the repeal, his claim was extinguished. The Board rescinded the prior award and vacated the Rehabilitation Unit's determination. This decision aligns with the Board's en banc ruling in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which clarified that unvested vocational rehabilitation rights are terminated by the repeal of section 139.5.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationvested rightsinchoate rightrepealsaving clauseWCAB jurisdictionRehabilitation UnitVRMAmodified work
References
1
Case No. ADJ4386818 (SAL 0091744) ADJ2744571 (SAL 0087231)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

SUSAN FERGUSON vs. MONTEREY PENINSULA COUNTRY CLUB; SEDGWICK CMS, Administered By CIGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Susan Ferguson's reconsideration, affirming that her right to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was barred by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5. The Board found her rights did not vest before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the repeal, citing precedent from *Weiner v. Ralph's Company* and *Beverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Boganim)*. These decisions established that VRMA rights terminate upon repeal unless a final appellate decision exists, which Ferguson lacked. Therefore, the WCJ lacked jurisdiction after January 1, 2009, to grant VRMA benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code Section 139.5Vesting of RightsSavings ClauseSection 5502(b)(3)En Banc DecisionsWeiner v. Ralph's CompanyBeverly Hilton Hotel v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1972

Azzato v. Suffolk County Legislature

This case involves an appeal by employees of the Suffolk County Department of Public Welfare from a judgment dismissing their petition. The petitioners sought to compel respondents to restore their salaries to a grade in effect before the repeal of Social Services Law section 79-a. This repealed law had mandated higher salaries for social service personnel based on graduate training, which the petitioners had received. Following the repeal, their salaries were reduced. Petitioners argued that they are "State employees" under Civil Service Law section 121(2), which prohibits salary reductions for permanent incumbents. The court's judgment affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the respondents. A dissenting opinion argued for the application of Civil Service Law to county employees to prevent such salary reductions and raised concerns about equal protection.

Salary ReductionCivil Service LawSocial Services LawArticle 78 CPLRCounty EmployeesState EmployeesEqual Protection ClausePublic Welfare DepartmentStatutory InterpretationSuffolk County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Significant
Feb 22, 2005

TERRY MARTINEZ, Applicant vs. CALIFORNIA BUILDING SYSTEMS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, on behalf of FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, in liquidation, adjusted by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP

The Appeals Board held that the repeal of Labor Code section 4062.9 applies to all cases, regardless of the date of injury, unless a decision had become final before the repeal's effective date of April 19, 2004.

SB 899Labor Code section 4062.9primary treating physician presumptionCIGAliquidationAppeals Boardreconsiderationen bancfinal decisionappellate rights
References
10
Case No. ADJ347040
En Banc
Jun 11, 2009

LAWRENCE WEINER vs. RALPHS COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board holds that the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, effective January 1, 2009, terminated any non-final rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services. The WCAB lost jurisdiction over these claims unless the rights were vested through a final order issued before the repeal date.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationrepealvested rightsinchoate rightssaving clauseghost statutesjurisdictionfinal judgmentstatutory repeal
References
54
Case No. ADJ2860436
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

HAROLD DAVID WATSON vs. VANCE INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL FIRE CO. OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a prior decision finding the employer's appeal of a vocational rehabilitation benefits determination was timely filed. The Appeals Board upheld its prior finding, determining that the employer filed its appeal on December 11, 2008, which was before the January 1, 2009 repeal of the vocational rehabilitation statute. Because the appeal was timely and the right to benefits was not vested prior to the repeal, the applicant is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5Appeal PetitionDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPersonal serviceService by mailDocument Cover SheetWCAB District OfficeProof of service
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 70 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