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. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549)
Regular
May 29, 2012

MARYLOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for sinus injuries allegedly caused by workplace mold exposure. The defendant, County of Sacramento, sought reconsideration after an administrative law judge found the injury AOE/COE, relying on the applicant's treating physician's opinion. The defendant argued that the agreed medical examiner's opinion should have prevailed and that there was insufficient evidence of a materially greater workplace mold exposure. The majority of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the treating physician's opinion persuasive and sufficiently supported by medical evidence.

Agreed Medical ExaminerCausationMold ExposureFungal SinusitisIndustrial InjuryOccupational NexusMedical ProbabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8258390, ADJ8246247, ADJ9024430
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

HAMIDULLAH SARWARY vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a finding that he failed to prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating him after resolving his workers' compensation claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the judge's decision lacked clarity regarding evidence of termination and temporal proximity between settlement and separation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to develop the record on whether the applicant was terminated due to his settlement and if such termination was necessitated by business realities.

Labor Code section 132aRetaliationDiscriminationTerminationCompromise and ReleasePrima facie caseBusiness realitiesTemporal proximityDisadvantageous treatmentWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9298865
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

Oscar Scagliotti vs. Elmore Toyota

This case concerns Oscar Scagliotti's claim of retaliatory termination by Elmore Toyota in violation of Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, finding that Scagliotti established a prima facie case by showing his termination occurred immediately after he left work for industrial injury treatment. The Board found Elmore Toyota's stated reason of leaving without permission was not credible and contradicted by the close temporal proximity to his injury notification and deviation from standard procedures. Compensation and penalties are deferred pending further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code 132aRetaliationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie ClaimTerminationReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical TreatmentDisadvantageous Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ10738767; ADJ14240277; ADJ14240278
Regular
Jun 18, 2025

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

Applicant Jeanette France sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) decision, which had found that she failed to prove discrimination under Labor Code section 132a following her termination. The Appeals Board granted France's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board concluded that the defendant, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, violated Labor Code section 132a by discharging France on February 1, 2017. This decision was based on France establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and the defendant failing to provide substantial evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination, despite allegations of poor performance.

Labor Code Section 132adiscriminationretaliationterminationindustrial injuryprima facie caseburden of proofpretextbusiness realitiesemergency hire
References
Case No. ADJ828729 (VNO 0514052)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

LEONEL ARRIOLA vs. SPRINT PCS NEXTEL, CNA RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant sought reconsideration of a November 24, 2009, Findings and Award which found an industrial injury to the back, neurologic system, headaches, and ears, but excluded psychological injury. The WCJ later vacated that award due to clerical error. Applicant's petition for reconsideration, filed after the award was vacated, is therefore moot. The Board dismissed the petition and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABArriolaSprint PCS NextelCNA Risk ManagementPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injuryback injuryneurologic system
References
Case No. ADJ4450571
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

JOSE SANCHEZ vs. BAKU CORPORATION, dba ALDER CREEK MILLWORKS, CLARENDON INSURANCE, Adjusted By AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The WCJ dismissed applicant's claim for failure to prosecute. The WCAB lacked jurisdiction because the applicant is not an injured worker. Upon reconsideration, the WCAB reversed the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliatory terminationwitness testimonyfailure to prosecutejurisdictionpetition for reconsiderationadministrative law judgejudicial economy
References
Case No. ADJ10116932
Significant
Jul 15, 2019

KRIS WILSON, Applicant vs. STATE OF CA CAL FIRE; legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding its authority to establish an analytical framework with five non-exhaustive factors for determining what constitutes a 'catastrophic injury' under Labor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B).

Catastrophic injuryLabor Code section 4660.1(c)(2)(B)Psychiatric injuryImpairment ratingMechanism of injuryTemporal restrictionsLegislative intentSB 863En Banc decisionPrecedent decision
References
Case No. ADJ6550105, ADJ6976802, ADJ6777361
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

ESTHER GARCIA vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's reconsideration petition and granted the applicant's. The Board amended the previous award to find that the applicant met her initial burden of proof for a Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim, specifically regarding her demotion after sustaining industrial injuries. However, the issue of whether the employer had a legitimate business reason for the demotion was deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board upheld the WCJ's findings regarding the applicant's permanent disability and the substantiality of the agreed medical evaluator's opinion.

Labor Code Section 132aDemotionIndustrial InjuryDiscriminationReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentPrima Facie CaseLegitimate Business Reason
References
Case No. ADJ6880149
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

MIKE STARSMERE vs. S & R MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding no final order was issued by the WCJ for reconsideration to apply. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, as no significant prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated. The WCJ's interim order appropriately deferred substantive issues due to an incomplete medical record and appointed an independent medical examiner to augment the record. The applicant's contentions regarding Dr. Sanders' report were deemed misplaced as the report was not admitted into evidence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterim Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderCervical Thoracic Lumbar SpineTemporary DisabilityTemporal Mandibular JointLabor Code Section 5701
References
Case No. ADJ10511809, ADJ10227114
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

MARIA GARCIA vs. TRIPLE A EXPRESS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for injuries to the applicant's back and legs. The applicant appealed a decision that denied her claim, arguing the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report was insufficient due to improper apportionment. The Appeals Board affirmed the original decision, finding the QME's report constituted substantial evidence. However, the Board amended the award to specify that the applicant did sustain an injury to her low back and right upper leg, but that this injury did not cause permanent disability or require further medical treatment.

AOE/COEApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardReconsiderationPre-existing conditionMedical treatment
References
Showing 1-10 of 20 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