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. ADJ2860436
Regular
Dec 02, 2011

HAROLD DAVID WATSON vs. VANCE INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL FIRE CO. OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a prior decision finding the employer's appeal of a vocational rehabilitation benefits determination was timely filed. The Appeals Board upheld its prior finding, determining that the employer filed its appeal on December 11, 2008, which was before the January 1, 2009 repeal of the vocational rehabilitation statute. Because the appeal was timely and the right to benefits was not vested prior to the repeal, the applicant is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5Appeal PetitionDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPersonal serviceService by mailDocument Cover SheetWCAB District OfficeProof of service
References
50
Case No. ADJ721289 (POM 0278079) ADJ820025 (LBO 0312141) ADJ1988208 (POM 0278080) ADJ6759922
Regular
Sep 06, 2012

GEORGE VELASQUEZ vs. RALPHS, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Court of Appeal ruled that Ralphs' initial appeal of vocational rehabilitation benefits was timely despite lacking a Declaration of Readiness. However, the applicant's vocational rehabilitation award was not final before Labor Code section 139.5 was repealed on January 1, 2009. Consequently, the applicant's right to these benefits expired, and the Appeals Board lost jurisdiction. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and ordered that the applicant take nothing for vocational rehabilitation benefits.

RemittiturRehabilitation UnitDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)vocational rehabilitation benefitsLabor Code section 139.5finality of awardjurisdictionappeal timelinessannulmentreconsideration
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. HomeCrest Corp.

This workers' compensation case addresses whether an employee, previously awarded permanent total disability (PTD) benefits from an initial injury, can receive additional vocational disability benefits for a subsequent injury without proving rehabilitation. The employee, Bonnie Turner, sustained a neck injury resulting in PTD benefits against her employer, HomeCrest Corporation, and later developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and hypertension, leading to a 60% permanent partial disability award against the Tennessee Department of Labor Second Injury Fund. The court found that Turner did not return to work after reaching maximum medical improvement from her neck injury and therefore failed to demonstrate rehabilitation. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that without rehabilitation, an employee's entitlement to further vocational disability benefits ends upon a finding of PTD. Consequently, the trial court's award of benefits against the Second Injury Fund for Turner's second injuries was reversed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilitySecond Injury FundRehabilitationVocational Disability BenefitsCarpal Tunnel SyndromeHypertensionCervical InjuryBack InjuryPre-existing Injury
References
7
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. SRO 0141948
Regular
Aug 08, 2008

DANIEL J. KOFFLER vs. INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, THE TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a defendant's claim that the judge improperly awarded vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found that Labor Code Section 139.5, the basis for the awarded benefits, does not apply to injuries occurring after January 1, 2004, which was the applicant's injury date. Therefore, the Board amended the Compromise and Release to delete the provision for vocational rehabilitation benefits, as the applicant had also settled any claim to supplemental job displacement benefits.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation BenefitsSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitsLabor Code Section 139.5Labor Code Section 4658.5Industrial InjuryPsyche InjuryMental StressNervous SystemDate of Injury
References
0
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. 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
Case No. ADJ2618825 (SAC 0304473)
Regular
Nov 24, 2010

WILLIAM ROSS vs. GOLDEN STATE EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that denied vocational rehabilitation benefits and a supplemental job displacement benefit. The WCAB found the applicant may have been denied due process by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who issued the prior order without allowing the applicant to present evidence. While the WCAB agreed the applicant is not entitled to supplemental job displacement benefits due to the injury date, the matter is returned for further proceedings on vocational rehabilitation to determine if any vested rights exist. The WCAB also noted the ALJ erred in relieving counsel without the applicant's input.

Vocational rehabilitation benefitsSupplemental job displacement benefitLabor Code section 139.5Labor Code section 4658.5Date of injuryRepeal of benefitsDue processStatus conferenceOrder relieving counselReconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ3947517
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

RUDY GONZALES vs. CELITE CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior ruling that his claim for retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was terminated by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition, vacating the Rehabilitation Unit's order awarding VRMA because the applicant's right to benefits had not vested in a final order before the effective date of the repeal. The Board clarified that a determination of Qualified Injured Worker status does not constitute a final award of VRMA, and jurisdiction over such claims cannot be conferred by waiver. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any further vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationVRMAQIWvested rightinchoate rightfinal orderrepealjurisdictionreconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 11,340 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