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. 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 The Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings pending the *Weiner* decision.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. 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vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed.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 The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination.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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstein v. LeCroy Corp.

This opinion addresses a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The third-party defendant, plaintiff's employer, argued that the third-party complaint was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff had not sustained a "grave injury." The court reviewed the statutory definition of "grave injury" following the 1996 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law, which aimed to repeal Dole v Dow Chem. Co. liability except in such cases. It determined that the plaintiff's alleged injuries, a displaced wrist fracture with 35% loss of use, did not meet the statutory requirement of "permanent and total" loss of use. Consequently, the court granted the third-party defendant's motion and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityStatutory ConstructionDole Liability RepealPersonal Injury ClaimsWrist Fracture InjuryLoss of Use
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
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
4
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. 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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 2,154 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