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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
Case No. ADJ2582936
Regular
May 20, 2011

MAYRA ENRIQUEZ vs. NOUVEUR DESIGN, INC., EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision to deny compensation for the applicant's claimed psychiatric injury. Applicant, employed for less than six months, argued her injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The Board found that catching her hand in a machine was a foreseeable, ordinary risk of her job, not an extraordinary event. Therefore, Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims unless caused by an extraordinary condition, barred recovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)extraordinary employment conditionpsychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementsudden and extraordinaryregular and routinemachine operatorindustrial injurypetition for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ7096070
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

HUGO PEREZ vs. CONSTRUCTION ZONE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a scaffolding fall who also claims psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the applicant, employed for less than six months, argued his psychiatric injury stemmed from a "sudden and extraordinary" event. The Board found the protective tubing giving way during his fall constituted an extraordinary event, thus excepting it from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric claims. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment rulesudden and extraordinary eventscaffoldingfall from heightprotective tubingcompensabilityreconsiderationrescinded
References
Case No. ADJ1332729 (RDG 0121425)
Regular
Feb 18, 2011

LINEA HIMES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES-IHSS, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the compensability of the applicant's psychiatric injury. The defendant argued the applicant's psychiatric injury was not compensable due to less than six months of employment, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). While the WCJ found the auto accident was a "sudden and extraordinary event" exempting the six-month rule, the Board remanded the case. The Board requires the WCJ to first determine the applicant's exact length of employment before addressing the "sudden and extraordinary" exception.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentTraumatic Automobile Accident
References
Case No. ADJ7412203
Regular
Jul 15, 2011

RIGOBERTO GARCIA vs. COLE RANCH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's industrial injury was caused by a "sudden and extraordinary" event, thereby exempting it from the six-month employment rule for psychiatric injuries under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Board corrected a clerical error in the citation of the relevant statute. While the defendant argued the event was an inherent risk of the job, the applicant's uncontradicted testimony provided the only evidence suggesting it was not routine. A dissenting opinion argued that a simple fall from a ladder, without more, should not qualify as extraordinary, especially given the short employment duration and lack of evidence for truly unusual circumstances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRigoberto GarciaCole RanchState Compensation Insurance FundADJ7412203Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationCorrecting Clerical ErrorFindings and Ordersavocado pickerhigh tree worker
References
Case No. ADJ3926578 (GOL 0088323)
Regular
Apr 15, 2010

Joseph Villa vs. FOOD 4 LESS, ESIS/ACE USA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding applicant sustained a 100% permanent disability due to back and psyche injuries. Defendant argued against the psychiatric injury claim based on the applicant's short employment duration and lack of a sudden/extraordinary event. The Board found the medical evidence regarding the psychiatric injury's causation was insufficient and potentially contradictory. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record on causation and to address the six-month employment rule and the "sudden and extraordinary" event requirement if applicable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjurySudden and Extraordinary Employment ConditionPredominant CauseSubstantial Medical EvidenceRes JudicataLachesApportionmentSomatizationDerivative Injury
References
Case No. ADJ484574 (ANA 0392117)
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

HECTOR ROMAN vs. D L BONE & SONS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant seeks reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that awarded psychiatric injury benefits to an applicant injured within six months of employment. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the applicant's fall due to a rotted beam, while employed less than six months, constitutes a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" for psychiatric injury. The Board found the fall, though sudden, was not sufficiently extraordinary given the applicant's role as a painter regularly working at heights, thus likely precluding psychiatric benefits under Labor Code § 3208.3(d).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurybilateral wristsneckbackpsychiatric injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentfurther medical treatmentLabor Code section 3208.3(d)
References
Case No. ADJ8895037
Regular
Sep 15, 2014

EdNA FERDINAND vs. SOUTH CENTRAL PREVENTION COALITION, MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the initial Findings and Award. The Board found the WCJ's determination of a cumulative trauma psychiatric injury due to a sudden and extraordinary event lacked adequate legal justification. Furthermore, the medical evidence presented was deemed insufficient to support the finding of continuing temporary disability. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to address these deficiencies.

Sudden and extraordinary eventCumulative traumaPsyche injuryLabor Code section 3208.3(d)Six-month employment requirementSubstantial causePredominant causeViolent actTemporary total disabilityMedical opinion
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,137 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