Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ1039908 (RDG 0121430)

Regular

Nov 07, 2008

AYON vs. CLIFF'S AUTO CENTER, Uninsured, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant is entitled to a Job Displacement Voucher. The applicant sustained an industrial injury causing permanent disability and did not return to work for the defendant within 60 days of temporary disability termination. Therefore, the applicant is eligible for a nontransferable voucher of up to $6,000 for educational retraining or skill enhancement, as defined by Labor Code § 4658.5.

Job Displacement VoucherUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundStipulated AwardPermanent DisabilitySupplemental Job Displacement BenefitLabor Code § 4658.5Nontransferable VoucherEducation-Related RetrainingSkill EnhancementVocational Return to Work Counselor

References

Case No. ADJ11298015

Regular

May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that she was precluded from a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit, despite receiving a second Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The applicant contended that her second voucher was 'subsequent' to her first RTWSP payment, fulfilling an exception in Rule 17302(b). The Appeals Board clarified that the exception refers to the date of injury being subsequent, not the voucher issuance date. As the record lacked a finding on the cumulative trauma date of injury, the Board rescinded the previous order and returned the case to the trial level for this determination.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB vouchercumulative trauma injuryspecific injurydate of injuryLabor Code section 139.48Rule 17302Rule 17309Administrative Procedures Act

References

Case No. ADJ9559658, ADJ9841710

Regular

Jul 21, 2017

SANDRA MORALES SESENA vs. RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision, finding the applicant entitled to a second supplemental job displacement voucher. This is because the applicant sustained two distinct industrial injuries causing permanent partial disability, and the plain language of Labor Code section 4658.7 mandates a voucher for each qualifying injury. The Board rejected the employer's argument that injuries occurring concurrently or having the same stationary date precluded separate vouchers. The applicant is entitled to a separate voucher for each of her injuries to her lumbar spine and hypertension.

Supplemental job displacement voucherLabor Code section 4658.7Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of FactStipulated Awardindustrial injurypermanent partial disabilityseparate vouchersplain meaninglegislative intent

References

Case No. OXN 137267

Regular

Aug 14, 2007

MARK STONEBRAKER vs. MASTER COOLING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming that the defendant unreasonably delayed providing a job displacement voucher, entitling the applicant to a penalty. While the Board upheld the award of attorney's fees for enforcing the payment, they modified the penalty calculation. The 25% penalty will now be calculated against the actual amount of the voucher used by the applicant, not its potential maximum value.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitJob Displacement VoucherUnreasonable DelayPenaltyAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Compromise and ReleaseVocational RehabilitationWCJ

References

Case No. ADJ9932467

Regular

Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay

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. ADJ10588071, ADJ9823909

Regular

Feb 02, 2023

LILLIAN LONA vs. THE DISNEYLAND RESORT, DISNEY ANAHEIM

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: Applicant Lillian Lona sought an extension for her Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher, which expired March 18, 2021, due to COVID-19 restrictions. She argued the pandemic created a legal impossibility preventing her from utilizing the voucher for computer training. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that the unprecedented pandemic circumstances indeed created a legal impossibility excusing timely compliance with the statutory two-year voucher limit. Consequently, the WCAB granted Lona an additional 15 months from the Opinion's service date to use her SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherLabor Code section 4658.7(f)Executive Order N-33-20COVID-19 pandemicstay-at-home orderlegal impossibilitytollingvocational retrainingcomputer training

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. ADJ10887310

Regular

Jan 30, 2023

OSCAR MARTINEZ vs. SECURITA AMERICA, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

The applicant, Oscar Martinez, was injured on May 3, 2017, resulting in a 3% permanent disability. He returned to his regular job duties with his employer, Securita America, Inc., but was laid off approximately five months later due to his employer's contract ending. While Martinez subsequently worked for a new employer at the same location and performing similar duties, the Board found that this did not satisfy the requirement of returning to the "same job for the same employer" for at least 12 months. Therefore, the Appeals Board amended the prior finding, ruling that Martinez is entitled to a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherpermanent partial disabilityemployer's dutyregular work offermodified work offeralternative work offer12-month durationRule 10133.31(c)substantial evidence

References

Case No. ADJ 7552376

Regular

Apr 04, 2016

HECTOR REYES BARRERA vs. RCO REFORESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Hector Reyes Barrera sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that he settled his right to a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefits (SJDB) voucher in a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. Barrera argued he did not understand he was waiving this benefit and did not initial the relevant section. However, the C&R clearly stated the settlement amount included monies for the SJDB voucher, and the Order Approving C&R explicitly included SJDB in the release. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Barrera settled his entitlement to the SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitsSJDB voucherCompromise and ReleaseC&RPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJwaivervocational rehabilitationentitlement

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,048 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. ADJ1039908 (RDG 0121430)

Regular

Nov 07, 2008

AYON vs. CLIFF'S AUTO CENTER, Uninsured, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

References

Case No. ADJ11298015

Regular

May 27, 2025

Elideth Balderrama Ramirez vs. Hotcakes No 6 Inc IHOP 817, Preferred Employers San Diego

References

Case No. ADJ9559658, ADJ9841710

Regular

Jul 21, 2017

SANDRA MORALES SESENA vs. RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, LLC

References

Case No. OXN 137267

Regular

Aug 14, 2007

MARK STONEBRAKER vs. MASTER COOLING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitJob Displacement VoucherUnreasonable DelayPenaltyAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Compromise and ReleaseVocational RehabilitationWCJ

References

Case No. ADJ9932467

Regular

Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

References

Case No. ADJ1 0544723

Regular

Feb 21, 2017

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

References

Case No. ADJ10588071, ADJ9823909

Regular

Feb 02, 2023

LILLIAN LONA vs. THE DISNEYLAND RESORT, DISNEY ANAHEIM

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitSJDB voucherLabor Code section 4658.7(f)Executive Order N-33-20COVID-19 pandemicstay-at-home orderlegal impossibilitytollingvocational retrainingcomputer training

References

Case No. ADJ10079944

Regular

Feb 26, 2019

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

References

Case No. ADJ10887310

Regular

Jan 30, 2023

OSCAR MARTINEZ vs. SECURITA AMERICA, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE

References

Case No. ADJ 7552376

Regular

Apr 04, 2016

HECTOR REYES BARRERA vs. RCO REFORESTING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitsSJDB voucherCompromise and ReleaseC&RPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJwaivervocational rehabilitationentitlement

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,048 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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