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. 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vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed.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 The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination.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. VNO 382502; VNO 382503 VNO 382504; VNO 382505
Regular
May 15, 2008

DOREEN JONES vs. DAVID & BARBARA SALKIN, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a previous decision regarding retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board affirmed the applicant's entitlement to VRMA but modified the order to allow the defendant credit for VRMA paid during a specific period. The issue of a potential penalty for unreasonable delay was deferred pending further record development.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMARehabilitation UnitReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPenaltyLabor Code Section 5814(a)Credit
References
0
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
0
Case No. ADJ3730512 (FRE 0210105)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Roy Dettling vs. MERCED COMMUNITY COLLEGE, JT2 INTEGRATED SAN RAMON

In *Dettling v. Merced Community College*, the Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on January 1, 2009, terminated all pending and non-final vocational rehabilitation claims. Because the applicant's VRMA award was not final before the repeal, his right to these benefits was extinguished. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings not involving VRMA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationLabor Code § 139.5Qualified Injured WorkerVRMAWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyRepealNon-finalVested Rights
References
1
Case No. ADJ1798478 (LAO 0854694) ADJ2522770 (LAO 0856810)
Regular
May 13, 2009

KAREN BURTON-BARLOW vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, INTERCARE ORANGE

In this workers' compensation case, the Board granted reconsideration of an award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The defendant argued VRMA was improperly awarded as the applicant's cumulative trauma injury occurred after the statutory phase-out of such benefits. The Board is returning the case to the trial level due to jurisdictional questions regarding VRMA awards issued after the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5, pending related en banc decisions. The parties are encouraged to attempt informal resolution.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code Section 139.5repealphase-outcumulative traumaAMEFindings and AwardReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
1
Case No. ADJ3327550 (MON 0264965) ADJ3658010 (MON 0264963)
Regular
Jul 21, 2009

JOSEPH MCELVOGUE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns a dispute over the weekly rate of Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA). The defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that retroactively increased the VRMA rate, arguing it was an untimely judicial change rather than a clerical correction. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and reinstated the earlier, unchallenged VRMA rate. The Board found that the applicant's failure to timely seek reconsideration of the July 28, 2008 order, which set the rate at $840.00, made it final. Any attempt to substantively change that rate thereafter, including the claimed "clerical error" correction, was beyond the WCJ's jurisdiction.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMAReconsiderationFinal OrderClerical ErrorSubstantive ChangeJurisdictionLabor Code Section 5903TimelinessRescinded
References
1
Case No. ADJ3947517
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

RUDY GONZALES vs. CELITE CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior ruling that his claim for retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was terminated by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition, vacating the Rehabilitation Unit's order awarding VRMA because the applicant's right to benefits had not vested in a final order before the effective date of the repeal. The Board clarified that a determination of Qualified Injured Worker status does not constitute a final award of VRMA, and jurisdiction over such claims cannot be conferred by waiver. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any further vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationVRMAQIWvested rightinchoate rightfinal orderrepealjurisdictionreconsideration
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. LAO 762161
Regular
Aug 13, 2007

MIGUEL CORTES vs. KWM CORP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board found that CIGA is not liable because "other insurance" through Argonaut Insurance Company was available, negating CIGA's obligation under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(i). Therefore, CIGA has no liability for the VRMA awarded.

CIGAvocational rehabilitation maintenance allowanceVRMAother insuranceArgonaut Insurance CompanySuperior National Insurance Companyliquidationcovered claimsInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)joint and several liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ1908213
Regular
Mar 11, 2009

ROBERT WARD vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PSI AND ADJUSTED BY SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that applicant was entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) but not at the delay rate. The Board found the delay in VRMA reinstatement was caused by the applicant's pursuit of a settlement rather than the employer's actions. The issue of a Labor Code section 5814 penalty was deferred by the WCJ and therefore not addressed in this order.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMA delay rateLabor Code section 5814 penaltyretroactive VRMAPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurypermanent disabilityvocational rehabilitation benefitssettlement negotiationsRehabilitation Unit
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 377 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