Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ6990558

Regular

Sep 10, 2012

SHARON HAMMERLY vs. CARROWS RESTAURANT/CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP; MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior award to allow attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The original award found the employer unreasonably delayed a $6,000 Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher (SJDV) and imposed a 25% penalty, but denied attorney fees. The Board reversed this, holding that attorney fees are applicable when an award requires an SJDV, even if not explicitly listed, as the SJDV's entitlement was clear from the permanent disability award. The Board also affirmed the finding of unreasonable delay and the penalty, while reserving jurisdiction for the parties to determine the reasonable attorney fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherSJDVLabor Code Section 5814.5attorney's feesunreasonable delaypermanent disabilityindemnity rateMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference Statement

References

Case No. ADJ16283940

Regular

Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order

References

Case No. ADJ10079944

Regular

Feb 26, 2019

Robert Fndkyan vs. Opus One Labs, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to a Supplemental Job Displacement Voucher (SJDV). The original decision denied the SJDV due to the absence of a specific Physician's Return-to-Work form. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the employer was sufficiently informed of the applicant's permanent disability status and work restrictions through a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. Therefore, the Board determined that the applicant substantially complied with the requirements and is entitled to the SJDV, prioritizing substance over strict adherence to a particular form.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPhysician's Return-To-Work and Voucher formQualified Medical Evaluation ReportLabor Code section 4658.7(b)permanent and stationary statuspermanent partial disabilityvocational statuswork capacitysubstantial complianceform over substance

References

Case No. ADJ1 0544723

Regular

Feb 21, 2017

CARLOS BARRAZA AYON vs. GILL RANCH COMPANY, INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Notice of Benefit Ineligibility regarding a Return to Work Supplement, which was denied due to untimely application. The applicant argued inadequate notice of their right to a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature, finding the Director's decision was not yet subject to review at the trial level. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine the applicant's entitlement to an SJDV, as their underlying case settlement did not address this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn to Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherNotice of Benefit IneligibilityPetition for ReconsiderationPrematureTrial LevelAdjudicate EntitlementCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5900(a)

References

Case No. ADJ13057590; ADJ13058223

Regular

Aug 25, 2025

HEATHER RAMOS vs. PIH HEALTH, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Applicant Heather Ramos sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) which found defendant PIH Health and Athens Administrators had provided proof of service for a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The WCJ applied the presumption of timely mailing and receipt, finding applicant failed to rebut it and was not entitled to a penalty. Applicant contended there was no valid proof of service, and defendant did not meet the burden to invoke the presumption, thus entitling her to a penalty and attorney's fees. The Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's decision, concluding that the defendant's proof of service was valid, and applicant's evidence was insufficient to overcome the mailing presumption, therefore denying reconsideration.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPresumption of ReceiptMailbox RuleProof of ServiceRebuttal EvidenceWCABPetition for ReconsiderationPenaltiesAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

SHARON HAMMERLY vs. CARROWS RESTAURANT/CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP; MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Robert Fndkyan vs. Opus One Labs, Employers Compensation Insurance Company

CARLOS BARRAZA AYON vs. GILL RANCH COMPANY, INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

HEATHER RAMOS vs. PIH HEALTH, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPresumption of ReceiptMailbox RuleProof of ServiceRebuttal EvidenceWCABPetition for ReconsiderationPenaltiesAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814