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. ADJ353190 (AHM 0123870)
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's order awarding the applicant Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the applicant's VRMA rights vested before the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5, thus the Board retained jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendant is liable for VRMA at the applicant's temporary total disability (TTD) rate of $640.00 per week due to their delay in providing rehabilitation services, exceeding the VRMA cap.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Rehabilitation UnitPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryTotal Temporary Disability (TTD) RateHofmeister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Administrative Director's RulesWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyAppeals Board en banc
References
10
Case No. ADJ4265715
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed.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 The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination.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. VNO 382502; VNO 382503 VNO 382504; VNO 382505
Regular
May 15, 2008

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a previous decision regarding retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board affirmed the applicant's entitlement to VRMA but modified the order to allow the defendant credit for VRMA paid during a specific period. The issue of a potential penalty for unreasonable delay was deferred pending further record development.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMARehabilitation UnitReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPenaltyLabor Code Section 5814(a)Credit
References
0
Case No. ADJ1629575 (MON 0296496)
Regular
Oct 06, 2008

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's decision, finding applicant was not entitled to retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the delay rate. The Board reasoned that no delay in VRMA provision occurred as applicant declined services at the initial meeting, negating the applicability of Labor Code section 4642. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to the claimed VRMA payments from February 7, 2006, to September 5, 2007.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMADelay RateLabor Code Section 4642Qualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeQRRVocational Rehabilitation ServicesRetroactive PaymentsSettlement
References
0
Case No. SAC 0333584
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming that Roger Fisher is a qualified injured worker entitled to VRMA. However, the Board amended the award to calculate VRMA on a wage-loss basis, allowing credit for wages earned during subsequent employment in the mortgage business, distinguishing this case from *Gamble* where concurrent employment existed at the time of injury. Attorney fees were adjusted to 15% of the total adjusted VRMA amount due.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Qualified Injured Worker (QIW)Temporary Disability IndemnityWage Loss BasisCredit for WagesConcurrent EmploymentSubsequent EmploymentIndustrial InjuryTruck Driver
References
1
Case No. ADJ3730512 (FRE 0210105)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In *Dettling v. Merced Community College*, the Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA). The Board found that the repeal of Labor Code § 139.5 on January 1, 2009, terminated all pending and non-final vocational rehabilitation claims. Because the applicant's VRMA award was not final before the repeal, his right to these benefits was extinguished. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings not involving VRMA.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationLabor Code § 139.5Qualified Injured WorkerVRMAWeiner v. Ralphs CompanyRepealNon-finalVested Rights
References
1
Case No. AHM 0099560 AHM 0099539 AHM 0099552 AHM 0099611 AHM 0099625 AHM 0099626 AHM 0102769
Regular
Oct 16, 2007

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, establishing that the applicant is entitled to Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) at the temporary disability rate. This VRMA is payable from November 16, 2006, onward, a date determined by the applicant's unequivocal demand for vocational rehabilitation services. The Board clarified that prior stipulations did not obligate payment from an earlier date, as VRMA is contingent upon an employee's willingness to participate in rehabilitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Temporary Total Disability (TTD) rateFindings Award and OrderRehabilitation Unit (RU)Stipulation and OrderGastric Bypass SurgeryPermanent and Stationary ReportLabor Code section 139.5(c)
References
3
Case No. ADJ295449 (EUR 0039208)
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to partially reverse the WCJ's decision, affirming the award of Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) but rescinding the Labor Code section 5814 penalty on VRMA and attorney's fees under section 5814.5. While the Board agreed VRMA was owed due to changed circumstances, it found the employer's delay was not unreasonable, thus negating grounds for penalties or additional fees. The Board also upheld the allowance of the Employment Development Department's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Employment Development Department (EDD) lienmodified employmentRU-94RU-105unreasonable delaychanged circumstances
References
7
Case No. ADJ1798478 (LAO 0854694) ADJ2522770 (LAO 0856810)
Regular
May 13, 2009

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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. VNO 0468876
Regular
Jul 19, 2007

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the lower judge's order that applicant was entitled to vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) at the "legal rate" without offset for earnings. The Board remanded the case for recalculation of VRMA considering applicant's earnings during the relevant period, noting the "legal rate" was not sufficiently defined and that applicant's employment income necessitated a wage loss calculation. The Board also vacated the penalty and attorney fees awarded due to the dispute over VRMA calculation.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCEVRMALEGAL RATEWAGE LOSSREHABILITATION UNITFINDINGS AND ORDERLABOR CODE SECTION 5814ATTORNEYS' FEES
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 56 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