Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ8066822

Regular

May 30, 2019

SCOTT WALL vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns a deputy sheriff sergeant, Scott Wall, who alleges discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Wall was denied a requested transfer to a patrol division while on injury leave, despite having the seniority for it. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that the County of Sacramento discriminated against Wall by denying the transfer, as less senior employees were transferred. The employer's defense of business necessity was rejected because the County had other options to fill the critical patrol positions.

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTransfer denialSeniorityBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDisadvantageous treatmentWCJReconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ7009322

Regular

Nov 17, 2015

PENNY VERDIN vs. HEALDSBURG SENIOR LIVING, LLC, dba, HEALDSBURG SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, CARE WEST INSURANCE

This case involved an applicant who alleged her termination constituted discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued her employer terminated her due to her permanent and stationary industrial injury, especially after withdrawing a modified duty position without an interactive process. While a prima facie case was established, the defendant successfully rebutted the claim by demonstrating no available permanent positions accommodated the applicant's work restrictions. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the employer had a legitimate business reason for termination and the applicant failed to provide contradictory evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPenny VerdinHealdsburg Senior LivingLLCCare West InsuranceLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPermanent and Stationary InjuryModified DutyTemporary Disability

References

Case No. SBR 0315782

Regular

Jul 30, 2007

GORDON ADAMS vs. SOUTHLAND DRYWALL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, Inc., whose lien was denied because it allegedly did not use its full corporate name or have a fictitious business name permit. The Appeals Board rescinded the denial and returned the case for further proceedings, finding that Premier was properly licensed as an outpatient facility and that the defendant did not timely raise the fictitious business name statement issue. The Board clarified that a facility fee lien claimant is not required to have a Medical Board fictitious-name permit, but may need to file a fictitious business name statement if operating under a name other than its legal corporate name.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFictitious Business Name StatementFictitious-Name PermitBusiness & Professions Code Section 17910Business & Professions Code Section 2415(a)Medical Board of CaliforniaOutpatient SettingFacility FeeCompromise and Release

References

Case No. ADJ9816136

Regular

Sep 14, 2015

JERRY LINDSEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

This case involves a senior systems analyst who slipped and fell in Union Station while commuting home from work. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to reverse a prior decision that found the injury compensable. The WCAB determined the injury is barred by the "going and coming rule" as the applicant was not on the employer's premises or benefiting the employer. Exceptions for premises line and travel expense did not apply because the employer did not control Union Station and the applicant was not paid for his commute.

Going and Coming RulePremises Line ExceptionTravel Expense ExceptionIndustrial InjurySenior Systems AnalystUnion StationLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityLACMTACompensabilitySpecial Mission

References

Case No. LAO 0878674

Regular

Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that barred a lien claim due to the alleged lack of a fictitious business name permit. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant presented a surgical clinic license, the record was unclear about its actual business name and compliance with fictitious name filing requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the lien claimant's true name and establish its compliance with fictitious business name laws.

Fictitious Business Name StatementSurgical Clinic LicenseHealth ServicesBusiness and Professions CodeMedical BoardLien ClaimantOutpatient SettingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationReasonableness of Fees

References

Case No. LAO 0794643

Regular

May 07, 2008

FRANCISCO CHAPA vs. GIBSON OVERSEAS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the initial denial of a lien claim by S&B Surgery Center. The Board found the record insufficient regarding S&B's licensure and proper business naming, remanding the case for further development. This includes proving proper licensure as an "outpatient setting" and addressing the necessity of filing a fictitious business name statement, followed by a determination of the reasonableness of the billed fees.

Lien claimantreconsiderationlicensurefictitious business name statementoutpatient settingsurgical clinicMedical Boardcounty clerkreasonableness of feesburden of proof

References

Case No. ANA 381864

Regular

Feb 25, 2008

TUAN KHANH DO vs. CONEYBEARE PERSONNEL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) entitlement to payment for medical-legal services. The defendant insurer argued that the QME's lien claim was invalid due to the use of a business name without a fictitious business name permit. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the QME rendered services and signed reports under his own name. The Board further noted that the insurer failed to properly object to the billings within the regulatory timeframe and the lien claim form was amended to reflect the QME's individual name.

WCABState Compensation Insurance FundMedical-legal servicesFictitious business name permitQualified Medical ExaminerLien claimCompromise and releaseMedical Board of CaliforniaBusiness and Professions CodeLabor Code

References

Case No. ADJ9351964 ADJ9351965

Regular

Mar 15, 2016

ROGELIO CORNEJO vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior en banc decision. The prior decision held that Chapter 20 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code did not apply to a copy service lien claimant acting as an agent or independent contractor for a lawyer. Consequently, proof of registration and bonding under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455 was deemed unnecessary in such circumstances. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYounique CaféZenith Insurance CompanyWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Rogelio CornejoPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancChapter 20Business and Professions Code

References

Case No. ADJ8741812

Regular

May 20, 2019

STEVEN ALFARO vs. AYERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an employer, Ayers Construction Company, accused of discriminating against an employee, Steven Alfaro, for exercising his workers' compensation rights under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant alleged he was terminated shortly after requesting medical treatment, and despite a medical release, was denied reinstatement while other, less senior employees were retained. The Appeals Board affirmed the prior decision finding discrimination, determining the employer failed to provide a credible business necessity for the discharge. The employer must pay increased compensation, back wages and benefits, with adjustments for temporary disability payments received.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationreinstatementincreased compensationback wagesbenefitstemporary disabilitymedical treatment

References

Case No. ADJ6994190

Regular

Nov 05, 2012

JUAN GAMBOA vs. HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that he did not prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to demonstrate he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his work-related injury. The employer presented evidence of a business slowdown and layoffs affecting both industrially and non-industrially injured employees. Therefore, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof regarding discriminatory treatment.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderworkers' compensation administrative law judgedisadvantageous treatmentbusiness necessityeconomic slowdowntemporary hirere-hireddisabled workers

References

Showing 1-10 of 567 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ8066822

Regular

May 30, 2019

SCOTT WALL vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Labor Code section 132aDiscriminationRetaliationTransfer denialSeniorityBusiness necessityPrima facie caseDisadvantageous treatmentWCJReconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ7009322

Regular

Nov 17, 2015

PENNY VERDIN vs. HEALDSBURG SENIOR LIVING, LLC, dba, HEALDSBURG SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, CARE WEST INSURANCE

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPenny VerdinHealdsburg Senior LivingLLCCare West InsuranceLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPermanent and Stationary InjuryModified DutyTemporary Disability

References

Case No. SBR 0315782

Regular

Jul 30, 2007

GORDON ADAMS vs. SOUTHLAND DRYWALL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

Case No. ADJ9816136

Regular

Sep 14, 2015

JERRY LINDSEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

References

Case No. LAO 0878674

Regular

Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

Case No. LAO 0794643

Regular

May 07, 2008

FRANCISCO CHAPA vs. GIBSON OVERSEAS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Lien claimantreconsiderationlicensurefictitious business name statementoutpatient settingsurgical clinicMedical Boardcounty clerkreasonableness of feesburden of proof

References

Case No. ANA 381864

Regular

Feb 25, 2008

TUAN KHANH DO vs. CONEYBEARE PERSONNEL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

References

Case No. ADJ9351964 ADJ9351965

Regular

Mar 15, 2016

ROGELIO CORNEJO vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYounique CaféZenith Insurance CompanyWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Rogelio CornejoPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancChapter 20Business and Professions Code

References

Case No. ADJ8741812

Regular

May 20, 2019

STEVEN ALFARO vs. AYERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationreinstatementincreased compensationback wagesbenefitstemporary disabilitymedical treatment

References

Case No. ADJ6994190

Regular

Nov 05, 2012

JUAN GAMBOA vs. HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES

References

Showing 1-10 of 567 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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